Deleted
Joined: May 9, 2024 12:31:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2017 0:52:58 GMT -5
Thank you. I was going to get around to making that point, but hadn't yet. That is so true. History is not erased one iota by this. Idolation of slavery is. This rests on the erroneous presumption that monuments to Confederates constitutes idolization of slavery. Don't let facts get in the way of their "righteous indignation"...
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 18, 2017 2:10:16 GMT -5
How many statues & monuments to Hitler are there in Germany? Has everyone forgotten the history of what Hitler did because there are no statues? What about Stalin & Lenin? Did the world forget what they did when their statues were torn down? Saddam? How many cheered when his statues were pulled down? History is history. Doesn't go away & is only forgotten by those who don't pay attention. And AGAIN, many statues are simply being moved, not destroyed. Yes, some cities & states are choosing to destroy them, but for the most part, they are being moved & put into museums. Ya know, for history & education instead of for honoring them. Or put into Bannon's summer house?
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,732
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Aug 18, 2017 5:31:38 GMT -5
Was your tumour a war hero, a master tactician, and a central figure in a war that claimed nearly a third of the lives on the continent? This one is even worse than the "poisoned bowl of Skittles" from a year ago. Does he cease to be any of those things if all the statues to him vaporized instantly? Or was he that before the statues were created, while they existed, and still that if they go from public view?
Beware false idols. I await revisionist silliness from parts of the right. Both archeology and anthropology will be changed. 'We couldn't determine the history and norms of the people we were studying because they had no statues or an insufficient number.' Screw books, etc. Apparently history only exists in monuments for some.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 18, 2017 11:46:36 GMT -5
There's a world of difference between history and hagiography.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Aug 18, 2017 12:11:56 GMT -5
Was your tumour a war hero, a master tactician, and a central figure in a war that claimed nearly a third of the lives on the continent? This one is even worse than the "poisoned bowl of Skittles" from a year ago. I don't care to involve myself in this argument; however, I will say this regarding thyme4change 's argument: If you consider the tumor in relation to a patient's body habitus, the analogy is accurate. If the cells of the body are citizens and the cells of the tumor are also citizens, but supportive of a completely different societal norm, the tumor is a war hero to the latter; a master tactician that is, indeed, the central figure in a war that can claim the life of the patient.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 18, 2017 13:40:14 GMT -5
Was your tumour a war hero, a master tactician, and a central figure in a war that claimed nearly a third of the lives on the continent? This one is even worse than the "poisoned bowl of Skittles" from a year ago. I don't care to involve myself in this argument; however, I will say this regarding thyme4change 's argument: If you consider the tumor in relation to a patient's body habitus, the analogy is accurate. If the cells of the body are citizens and the cells of the tumor are also citizens, but supportive of a completely different societal norm, the tumor is a war hero to the latter; a master tactician that is, indeed, the central figure in a war that can claim the life of the patient. It was a war of patriots, brothers fighting brothers, and of peoples that ultimately reconciled. Tumours are not brothers, patriots, or warriors. They cannot be reconciled to the rest of the body. They aren't great men and women capable of great works. The Confederacy was not a tumour to be excised, nor are the monuments to its leaders and statesmen such because of their belief in states' rights, and in the legitimacy of slavery in particular. I like Phoenix' idea: put it to a vote in the municipality that hosts the monument. If the people of the city see the merit in keeping the monuments in the public eye, let them stand. If not, so be it. Mayors and governors pandering to petty, reactionary voting blocs is undemocratic and a terrible idea to boot.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Aug 18, 2017 13:46:40 GMT -5
I don't care to involve myself in this argument; however, I will say this regarding thyme4change 's argument: If you consider the tumor in relation to a patient's body habitus, the analogy is accurate. If the cells of the body are citizens and the cells of the tumor are also citizens, but supportive of a completely different societal norm, the tumor is a war hero to the latter; a master tactician that is, indeed, the central figure in a war that can claim the life of the patient. It was a war of patriots, brothers fighting brothers, and of peoples that ultimately reconciled. Tumours are not brothers, patriots, or warriors. They cannot be reconciled to the rest of the body. They aren't great men and women capable of great works. The Confederacy was not a tumour to be excised, nor are the monuments to its leaders and statesmen such because of their belief in states' rights, and in the legitimacy of slavery in particular. I like Phoenix' idea: put it to a vote in the municipality that hosts the monument. If the people of the city see the merit in keeping the monuments in the public eye, let them stand. If not, so be it. Mayors and governors pandering to petty, reactionary voting blocs is undemocratic and a terrible idea to boot. Thyme's argument was an analogy, Virgil. It was nothing more and should not be taken literally - any more than that to which you often refer as "satire" should be taken literally. Her analogy was a good one, IMO, and should not be trashed as inadequate. That's what I was saying. I thought I made that clear when I opened with my lack of desire to become involved in the discussion of this subject.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 9, 2024 12:31:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2017 13:52:21 GMT -5
How in the hell is a statue of Stone Wall Jackson honoring the young men that died? How is the man who created the KKK a person to be honored? And can people seriously not grasp the difference between a President & a General who fought to destroy the country thru division? They can, with ease. It's currently being touted as "racism" while conveniently forgetting all the others who had slaves back in the day.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 18, 2017 14:13:27 GMT -5
did I really just see "but others did it, so that makes it okay" as an argument? Hmmm.... (looks around), no I'm definitely not in elementary school anymore....
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 18, 2017 15:18:10 GMT -5
did I really just see "but others did it, so that makes it okay" as an argument? Hmmm.... (looks around), no I'm definitely not in elementary school anymore.... The argument is "others did it, hence on what basis are you making the distinction"? And if you want to get really down and dirty, the argument is "others did it, hence on what basis are you making the distinction, and on what basis do you expect the malcontent and increasingly reactionary left to respect this distinction"? The wall between the heroes of the Confederacy and America's Founding Fathers is paper thin.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,546
|
Post by Tennesseer on Aug 18, 2017 17:01:19 GMT -5
I like Phoenix' idea: put it to a vote in the municipality that hosts the monument. If the people of the city see the merit in keeping the monuments in the public eye, let them stand. If not, so be it. Mayors and governors pandering to petty, reactionary voting blocs is undemocratic and a terrible idea to boot. The problem with putting it to a municipality vote, IMO, are racial demographics. The statue means two different things to two different racial demographics who must live and work together. If the town was not having racial problems before the vote, it would most likely have racial problems after it. A municipality vote on such a highly contentious issue is not the answer.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,419
|
Post by thyme4change on Aug 18, 2017 19:32:40 GMT -5
Instead of a vote, each municipality should make the decision via their own process, using their elected officials to represent and answer to their constituents.
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Aug 18, 2017 20:25:41 GMT -5
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 18, 2017 20:53:08 GMT -5
I like Phoenix' idea: put it to a vote in the municipality that hosts the monument. If the people of the city see the merit in keeping the monuments in the public eye, let them stand. If not, so be it. Mayors and governors pandering to petty, reactionary voting blocs is undemocratic and a terrible idea to boot. The problem with putting it to a municipality vote, IMO, are racial demographics. The statue means two different things to two different racial demographics who must live and work together. If the town was not having racial problems before the vote, it would most likely have racial problems after it. A municipality vote on such a highly contentious issue is not the answer. A vote is going to be more controversial than an official dictating "No monument for you." as a knee-jerk response to a political rally down in Podunk, VA? At least if it's put to a vote, the winning side can say to the losing side, "This is the popular will of the people." It's an issue that should be put to a vote if ever there was one. Important, but not nearly important enough to sway an election. Without a vote, the issue is decided by the whim of whatever party takes office for whatever reason. Without a vote or decision based on a strong poll, the municipality will be under constant pressure by malcontents to shelve the monuments, and once a monument goes into mothballs, it isn't coming out again. A vote is the best--and frankly, only--defense against pandering to special interest groups.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 18, 2017 21:33:19 GMT -5
VICE certainly isn't wasting any time moving to Phase 2. From www.vice.com/en_us/article/9kkkby/lets-get-rid-of-mount-rushmore:It's hard to be critical of a system when that system becomes an article of faith, filled with myths (the cherry tree), deities (Founding Fathers), and notions of salvation (the City on a Hill). It's going to be impossible to improve America if we can't be honest about its origins and its past. Her fruit is born from violence and greed, watered by the blood of my ancestors. To those who worship at her altar, these truths I speak of are heretical. That is why so many are fighting so hard—risking state or even federal prosecution for hate crimes—to cling to them. But the only way we can help America fulfill her promise is by shedding the faith and facing the truth. A big part of that process probably involves taking those men we've placed so high and bringing them back down to Earth where we can judge them for who they really were.
Let's take with us the righteous ideas and beliefs and leave everything else on the pyre.
Trump and his white supremacist cohorts believe the reverence some Americans have for these statues is simply respect for history, and that tearing them down is tantamount to ripping pages out of a textbook. But monuments built by the state are not history—they manifestations of power. They don't tell you who, what, why, or how something happened. Instead, they just inform you who's in control. There you go: Mt. Rushmore, the Washington monument, the Hoover dam--all manifestations of white power. Toss 'em on the pyre. This is not some backwoods leftist publication, nor is the author expressing a fringe opinion. Give it a few years to reach critical mass and then behold Mr. Cooper and his like-minded iconoclasts pulling down your national heritage one monument at a time. By that time you'll likely consider it a wonderful thing. The wonderful simplicity of progressivism.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 18, 2017 21:33:49 GMT -5
Last night PBS posted a poll asking if the statures should stay or be removed.
Republicans 88% they should stay
Independents 61% they should stay
democrats 44% they should stay
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Aug 19, 2017 0:10:53 GMT -5
No conservatives willing to take a crack at explaining & defending Confederate monuments in states that didn't even exist until decades after the Civil War?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 9, 2024 12:31:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2017 6:18:05 GMT -5
Last night PBS posted a poll asking if the statures should stay or be removed. Republicans 88% they should stay Independents 61% they should stay democrats 44% they should stay And most of the south would have voted to keep separate but equal. Sorry, when the statues have historically been used as symbols of oppression against a specific group... that group gets the vote.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 19, 2017 9:15:24 GMT -5
No conservatives willing to take a crack at explaining & defending Confederate monuments in states that didn't even exist until decades after the Civil War? Why does it require a defense? Should western Canada bulldoze its monuments--including those of famous abolitionists--because the events mostly occurred in eastern Canada and predated the provinces joining the Canadian confederacy?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 9, 2024 12:31:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2017 9:20:50 GMT -5
I believe the impact of suffragists was rather universally applied?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 19, 2017 12:17:20 GMT -5
I believe the impact of suffragists was rather universally applied? My point being that provinces (states) often "inherit" pre-confederate history from the parent nation, including history that ostensibly has nothing to do with these provinces. Is it awkward for Unionist states to host monuments to heroes of the Confederacy? A bit, I suppose. Just as it's a bit awkward for English-speaking provinces to host monuments to French statesmen/explorers from the era when Britain and France were at war in the colonies. They host them anyway in a show of respect and solidarity for French Canadians. They memorialize our collective history. They help establish a bond between two peoples that didn't always get along. This is my biggest grievance with the Confederate monuments being pulled down. Not because it's a slippery slope (which it is), and not because it's reactionary censorship (also true), but because it's a thumb of the nose to the Southern states. It's divisive and accusatory. I know most progressives have no problem with wreaking havoc if it services their notion of "social justice", but most progressives also can't see three inches in front of them when it comes to deducing the full consequences of their crusades.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 9, 2024 12:31:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2017 12:40:30 GMT -5
A thumb to the nose because? They lost?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 19, 2017 12:58:24 GMT -5
A thumb to the nose because? They lost? A thumb to the nose because they're saying to the Southern states, "Your great men were racist trash and we want nothing to do with them."
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 9, 2024 12:31:33 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2017 13:04:05 GMT -5
Interesting translation.
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Aug 19, 2017 13:09:22 GMT -5
and completely leaves out that many of these statues were meant to thumb their noses at black people & reminding them to know their place. Talk about rewriting history!
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,169
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 19, 2017 13:10:18 GMT -5
A thumb to the nose because? They lost? A thumb to the nose because they're saying to the Southern states, "Your great men were racist trash and we want nothing to do with them." Probably more accurate to suggest, "...we want nothing to do with them what they represent." What they represent is not worth honoring. Remembering, yes. Honoring, no.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 19, 2017 13:25:43 GMT -5
Perfectly consistent with Mr. Cooper (of VICE)'s interpretation.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 19, 2017 13:31:34 GMT -5
A thumb to the nose because they're saying to the Southern states, "Your great men were racist trash and we want nothing to do with them." Probably more accurate to suggest, "...we want nothing to do with them what they represent." What they represent is not worth honoring. Remembering, yes. Honoring, no. It would be more accurate still to suggest, "We want nothing to do with a part of what they represent." But only when talking about what you--Tallguy-- want the purge to mean. There's a world between this and how Southerners will interpret it. As the VICE article proves, there's also a world between your interpretation and that of black iconoclasts like Mr. Cooper. Regrettably, your interpretation doesn't amount to a hill of beans in terms of the fallout.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,868
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 19, 2017 19:58:50 GMT -5
Curious as to why these statues stood for years during democratic presidents as well as obamas reign but now they're awful?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,169
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 19, 2017 20:04:57 GMT -5
Because there really wasn't a danger when we did not have a president promoting the alt-right agenda and white supremacists. The statues could be fairly well ignored without the belief system behind them being mainstreamed by that twit.
|
|