Protestors vs. Rioters

[Kasandra]

But it doesn't change the matter that for that time, especially for someone from the original 13 states, you were loyal to your state first, the federal government second.

There were 34 states in the US when the Civil War started, and of the states that seceded, only 5 were "original" colonies. West Virginia didn't become a state until the war was already 2 years old.  Doesn't matter whether you want to call it technically treason, they did it for slavery, so I will call out their ethical and moral ideals as evil.

Yes, they took up arms against the Federal Government which made the rebels at best, insurrectionists at worst, but that isn't treason as defined by the Constitution.

Yet they were allowed to continue as citizens of the United States when the war ended.  None of them applied for citizenship, and as far as I know none of them emigrated to another country.  If they resigned their commisions and weren't committing treason, how could they honorably stay US citizens?  You are really good at rationalizing, but you aren't making much headway here.

[TheDeamon]

Yes, they took up arms against the Federal Government which made the rebels at best, insurrectionists at worst, but that isn't treason as defined by the Constitution.

Yet they were allowed to continue as citizens of the United States when the war ended.  None of them applied for citizenship, and as far as I know none of them emigrated to another country.  If they resigned their commisions and weren't committing treason, how could they honorably stay US citizens?  You are really good at rationalizing, but you aren't making much headway here.

I'll have to walk that one back, they do meet the definition for treason as they obviously "levied war against the United States" but the lack of prosecutions speaks volumes as well.

[Kasandra]

This new purity test they wish to impose upon the country is a farce, it needs to stop.

That's pathetic.  You should be jailed, if not executed, for your many egregious sins, about which I have no information.  Let's line everybody up and kill them all (not me, them).  Talk about an absurd argument.

Let's do this instead.  Let's get rid of the statues that honor the Generals who fought to preserve slavery and rename the military bases named in their honor.  Anybody want to argue against that?  We can have further discussions about who next to eviscerate once we've finished with these.

[TheDeamon]

Let's do this instead.  Let's get rid of the statues that honor the Generals who fought to preserve slavery and rename the military bases named in their honor.  Anybody want to argue against that?  We can have further discussions about who next to eviscerate once we've finished with these.

Tell that to the idiots ripping down statues outside the scope of the Confederacy and Jim Crow.

[Kasandra]

Yes, they took up arms against the Federal Government which made the rebels at best, insurrectionists at worst, but that isn't treason as defined by the Constitution.

Yet they were allowed to continue as citizens of the United States when the war ended.  None of them applied for citizenship, and as far as I know none of them emigrated to another country.  If they resigned their commisions and weren't committing treason, how could they honorably stay US citizens?  You are really good at rationalizing, but you aren't making much headway here.

I'll have to walk that one back, they do meet the definition for treason as they obviously "levied war against the United States" but the lack of prosecutions speaks volumes as well.

Yes, it speaks to a wish to return to comity in the face of a new reality.  Unfortunately, we're still waiting for most of that new reality and with examples like police brutality against blacks and the noose that was hung in Bubba Wallace's garage, we aren't anywhere close to where we're supposed to be.

There's even a movement in Congress to enact laws to restore the rights embodied in the Civil Rights Act.  We all know that won't go anywhere in a Republican Senate.

[Kasandra]

Let's do this instead.  Let's get rid of the statues that honor the Generals who fought to preserve slavery and rename the military bases named in their honor.  Anybody want to argue against that?  We can have further discussions about who next to eviscerate once we've finished with these.

Tell that to the idiots ripping down statues outside the scope of the Confederacy and Jim Crow.

Try to focus on one thing at a time.  We can't fix every problem all at once.

[Aris Katsaris]

Francis Scott Key(d. 1843) wrote the poem which became the lyrics to The Star Spangled Banner, he was dead long before the civil war started. His statues are being targeted now, because he owned slaves.

Ulysses S. Grant was the commander of the Army of the Potomac during the final years of the Civil War and was the one to accept Lee's Surrender ending the Civil War, he went on to serve two terms of PotUS where his administration was arguably one of the most ineffectual and corrupt in our history... But even his Statues are now under assault because he owned a slave for a little over a year before freeing him, and because his in-laws owned slaves.

Your point being? That those specific statues shouldn't have been toppled? Or are you using the toppling of those specific statues (which I'm undecided about) to somehow discredit the toppling of Confederate statues too?

On the balance, it seems to me that the vast majority of statues that get toppled thoroughly deserve it, and the examples you gave are a minority -- and I'm unclear whether those specific examples deserve it or not btw.

(But that's just my impression, is there anywhere a complete list of statues that have been toppled, so that we may judge the balance?)

Either way, as I've indicated already -- your government has lost legitimacy on this issue. Even if the government represented the majority of the people, that'd mean the majority has lost legitimacy on this issue: It no longer gets to decide which statues will remain and which won't. If a significant minority of the people disagree, the statue goes down: and for some it seems, "held slaves" is a big enough offense that it can't be excused by any other positive accomplishments.

In your case, those two were pointed out in case you didn't know they had no connection to the Confederacy and supporting its rebellion.

But with "they owned slaves" being grounds for removal. Then:

The National Anthem needs to be changed, it was written by a Slave Owner.
Washington DC needs to be renamed, it was named in honor of a Slave Owner.
The Washington monument needs to be renamed, it was named in honor of a Slave Owner.

The Declaration of Independence needs to meet a shredder, it was written by a Slave Owner and signed by many more slave owners.

The United State Constitution needs to meet a shredder, it was was signed by Slave Owners, and had significant input from them, in particular one James Madison.

The 1st Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights need to go as well, since Madison was involved in those too. So no more freedom of the press.

The Jefferson Memorial in Washington DC needs to be replaced, he owned slaves, can't be memorializing a slave owner.

The White House and the Capital Hill probably should be torn down, slave labor was likely involved in their initial construction and upkeep at times in the past.

The state of Washington needs to be renamed, as it was named to honor the first President of the United States, who was a slave owner.

Mount Rushmore needs to have two of its 4 heads removed(Washington and Jefferson), as they were slave owners.

Any statues of Benjamin Franklin need to be removed, anything that memorializes him needs to be removed, he owned slaves too.

Alexander Hamilton bought, sold, and traded slaves although it is unclear as whether or not he used any slaves himself.  So to be safe, he cannot be memorialized either.

Jacksonville, Florida needs to be renamed, it was named in honor of Andrew Jackson, he owned slaves. Likewise, any statuary of him needs to be purged.

Also in that vein, this means:
The $1 dollar bill(George Washington) needs to be replaced,
If we still had $2 bills, they'd need replaced as Jefferson is on those, he owned slaves
the $10 Bill has Hamilton on it so it needs replaced because of slaves,
the $20 bill has Andrew Jackson on it and he owned slaves, needs replaced
the $50 bill had Grant on it, he owned a slave, needs replaced.
the $100 bill has Ben Franklin on it, he owned some slaves, needs replaced.

Of the first 12 presidents of the United States only 2 of them, John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams never owned a slave. Two more of the first 12 (Martin Van Buren and William Henry Harrison) didn't own slaves while serving as PotUS but did own slaves at other points in their life.
Fillmore(#13) and Pierce(#14) did not own slaves at any point, there appears to be some dispute on if Buchanan(#15) owned slaves or not, Lincoln(#16) did not own slaves at any time, but Johnson(#17) had owned slaves before, as did Grant(#18), Grant was the last president to have ever owned a slave at any time in their life.

This new purity test they wish to impose upon the country is a farce, it needs to stop.

Oh, I see, you're of the "all or nothing" persuasion.

Because you're afraid they'll go too far, you don't want them to do anything at all.

Well, if it's a choice between toppling all the statues, and toppling none of them, I know I'd be on the side of "all of them". You could have gotten away with toppling only those statues deliberately honoring those who defended slavery (namely Confederate ones) and the worst slave-traders. But American government's utterly *braindead* defense of those inexcusable statues, means you'll get more than that toppled, as I said. Be happy if it now stops short of having to rename your capital to something like "Lincoln DC".

I don't think that anyone currently wants to blow up half of Mount Rushmore. I'd oppose it, if that makes you feel better. It's a big creation, an achievement of itself of worldwide fame. There may have been pyramids made to honor pharaohs using slave-labour, and I wouldn't want them demolished either.

Of the other suggestion'd you'd made, half the time you conflate "creation by slave-owner" (like the anthem) with "creation made to honor a slave-owner" (statues, depiction on currency).

Btw, removing Jackson from your currency would be more than fine. Replace him with Martin Luther King, or Tubman (who was once intended to replace Hamilton, but that got cancelled)

Tell that to the idiots ripping down statues outside the scope of the Confederacy and Jim Crow.

No, I'm first telling this to the idiot who doesn't want even the statues *within* the scope of the Confederacy and Jim Crow toppled.

You'll first get to accept that no-brainer, then you get to discuss about whether other statues outside that scope may be suffered to exist.

[TheDrake]

Let's do this instead.  Let's get rid of the statues that honor the Generals who fought to preserve slavery and rename the military bases named in their honor.  Anybody want to argue against that?  We can have further discussions about who next to eviscerate once we've finished with these.

Tell that to the idiots ripping down statues outside the scope of the Confederacy and Jim Crow.

That's a decent point, but misses the right answer. The right answer is, why did we wait so long to pull down Jim Crow statues that people started hating all of American history instead of just that period?

Grant's statue probably doesn't get messed with if we got rid of all the Lee statues. The fact that they're going too far is precisely because we didn't go far enough until they fermented into a steaming pile of hatred. That's on us.

[wmLambert]

...why did we wait so long to pull down Jim Crow statues that people started hating all of American history instead of just that period?

Yeah, why burn books and tear down history? Why not praise the Democrat party that started the KKK and fought against Civil Rights? After all, if history must be erased, then why nor substitute disinformation that makes you look better?

Tearing down anything is not protest. It is simply vandalism. Most Trump supporters don't wear MAGA hats because they are afraid of Democrat bullies and physical attack. Only one party does this.

[TheDrake]

Sometimes stupidity is simply breathtaking.

[Aris Katsaris]

Yeah, why burn books and tear down history? Why not praise the Democrat party that started the KKK and fought against Civil Rights? After all, if history must be erased, then why nor substitute disinformation that makes you look better?

Oh, you want all the Confederate statues up, because you respect history so much. /s

Did you also lament the toppling of statues of Lenin in Ukraine, or of Saddam Hussein in Iraq?

[TheDrake]

On July 9, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was first read in New York City, and to celebrate it a group of patriots pulled down the statue, and eventually melted it down, making bullets to fight the British with.

The statue was King George. Guess those arseholes were destroying history too.

[TheDeamon]

On July 9, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was first read in New York City, and to celebrate it a group of patriots pulled down the statue, and eventually melted it down, making bullets to fight the British with.

The statue was King George. Guess those arseholes were destroying history too.

King George was the guy they were fighting against.

[Aris Katsaris]

On July 9, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was first read in New York City, and to celebrate it a group of patriots pulled down the statue, and eventually melted it down, making bullets to fight the British with.

The statue was King George. Guess those arseholes were destroying history too.

King George was the guy they were fighting against.

So they were destroying recent history. /s

[NobleHunter]

Yeah, why burn books and tear down history? Why not praise the Democrat party that started the KKK and fought against Civil Rights? After all, if history must be erased, then why nor substitute disinformation that makes you look better?

Tearing down anything is not protest. It is simply vandalism. Most Trump supporters don't wear MAGA hats because they are afraid of Democrat bullies and physical attack. Only one party does this.

Statues are not history.

[ScottF]

Yeah, why burn books and tear down history? Why not praise the Democrat party that started the KKK and fought against Civil Rights? After all, if history must be erased, then why nor substitute disinformation that makes you look better?

Tearing down anything is not protest. It is simply vandalism. Most Trump supporters don't wear MAGA hats because they are afraid of Democrat bullies and physical attack. Only one party does this.

Statues are not history.

Neither are books or buildings. Burn it all.

[Aris Katsaris]

Neither are books or buildings. Burn it all.

Same question to you mate: did you lament the toppling of Lenin or Saddam Hussein statues?

If not, why not?

[TheDeamon]

Neither are books or buildings. Burn it all.

Same question to you mate: did you lament the toppling of Lenin or Saddam Hussein statues?

If not, why not?

Saddam Hussein statues were monuments to himself, and were "sufficiently recent" to not matter. The Lenin statues are more complex because "recency" for him, and possibly the individual statue, becomes more variable. But it can still largely be classified into being an imposed icon by the Communist Party rather than an Icon actually desired or genuinely pursued by the people of the area at the time the statue was erected.

Which also moves it into local solutions for local issues for the most part, or else we stumble into international condemnation of the Taliban destroying statues created by non-Islamic groups thousands of years before. Or ISIS/ISIL doing to same in Iraq and Syria.

[Kasandra]

Neither are books or buildings. Burn it all.

Same question to you mate: did you lament the toppling of Lenin or Saddam Hussein statues?

If not, why not?

Saddam Hussein statues were monuments to himself, and were "sufficiently recent" to not matter. The Lenin statues are more complex because "recency" for him, and possibly the individual statue, becomes more variable. But it can still largely be classified into being an imposed icon by the Communist Party rather than an Icon actually desired or genuinely pursued by the people of the area at the time the statue was erected.

Which also moves it into local solutions for local issues for the most part, or else we stumble into international condemnation of the Taliban destroying statues created by non-Islamic groups thousands of years before. Or ISIS/ISIL doing to same in Iraq and Syria.

Way to pretend there is some sort of slippery slope here.  Get rid of the monuments to generals who fought to preserve slavery in the US.  Why do you keep weaving and dodging?

[DonaldD]

Yeah, why burn books and tear down history? Why not praise the Democrat party that started the KKK and fought against Civil Rights? After all, if history must be erased, then why nor substitute disinformation that makes you look better?

Tearing down anything is not protest. It is simply vandalism. Most Trump supporters don't wear MAGA hats because they are afraid of Democrat bullies and physical attack. Only one party does this.

Statues are not history.

Neither are books or buildings. Burn it all.

wmLambert decries tearing down literally "anything" as "simply vandalism" - do you also disapprove of the removal of monuments to traitors and those who fought for the generational subjugation and enslavement of millions of people?

[Aris Katsaris]

Same question to you mate: did you lament the toppling of Lenin or Saddam Hussein statues?

If not, why not?

Saddam Hussein statues were monuments to himself, and were "sufficiently recent" to not matter. The Lenin statues are more complex because "recency" for him, and possibly the individual statue, becomes more variable. But it can still largely be classified into being an imposed icon by the Communist Party rather than an Icon actually desired or genuinely pursued by the people of the area at the time the statue was erected.

Kinda seems like you're using a different reason in each situation, and such a thing always makes it look as if it's justification-after-a-fact, an excuse meant to justify a pre-arrived conclusion.

Saddam Hussein's statues were "sufficiently recent". What does it matter that they were monuments to himself, who determines what's sufficiently recent and what isn't? Why is it not "erasing history" as wmLambert and ScottF have claimed for other statues?

Instead of not "erasing history", now it's suddenly about the Confederate statues being icons "actually desired or genuinely pursued by the people of the area at the time the statue was erected"? What does that have to do with whether toppling a statue is "erasing history" or not?

--

I suppose the most charitable interpretation of your words is that we should keep the statues in order to remember that the white Southern population were evil sons of bitches well into the 20th century, that they were the sort of people evil enough to WANT these statues erected. "Evil people erected these statues to their predecessors a century earlier: Though we'll never forget the evil of the Confederacy, there's the danger that we'll forget the evil of the people who wanted to honor it even well after its time had passed."

Is that the thing you people mean? That we should keep the statues to help us remember how evil the people who erected these statues were?

[NobleHunter]

Statues are not history.

Neither are books or buildings. Burn it all.

Now we're at risk of being pedantic about the definition of history but generally speaking, books are history.

[DonaldD]

Instead of not "erasing history", now it's suddenly about the Confederate statues being icons "actually desired or genuinely pursued by the people of the area at the time the statue was erected"? What does that have to do with whether toppling a statue is "erasing history" or not?

This.

So many confederate statues were erected generations after the end of the civil war, as a direct response to growing societal acceptance of the equality (sorta) and legal and economic gains of those "uppity negras", at the same time as Jim Crow laws were being enacted throughout the south and blacks were being lynched wholesale.

Why should it matter that the worst types of racists  "actually desired or genuinely pursued" those statues at the time?  That's an argument for taking them down.

[TheDeamon]

I suppose the most charitable interpretation of your words is that we should keep the statues in order to remember that the white Southern population were evil sons of bitches well into the 20th century, that they were the sort of people evil enough to WANT these statues erected. "Evil people erected these statues to their predecessors a century earlier: Though we'll never forget the evil of the Confederacy, there's the danger that we'll forget the evil of the people who wanted to honor it even well after its time had passed."

Is that the thing you people mean? That we should keep the statues to help us remember how evil the people who erected these statues were?

Pretty much.

If you go back to the Charlottesville discussion on this forum, I think you'll find I was okay with removal of the statues. What I objected to was their destruction. Many of those statues should have been removed, not destroyed, and then allowed to be placed in a venue where "the larger context" could be provided.

Also going back to Charlottesville, remember Trump's "there were good people on both sides" in regards to the statue removal issue? That same speech also included the little gem of him wondering "what's next? Jefferson, Washington, where do you stop?" Well, here we are 3 years later, and they're going after Jefferson and Washington statues.

[yossarian22c]

If you go back to the Charlottesville discussion on this forum, I think you'll find I was okay with removal of the statues. What I objected to was their destruction. Many of those statues should have been removed, not destroyed, and then allowed to be placed in a venue where "the larger context" could be provided.

Also going back to Charlottesville, remember Trump's "there were good people on both sides" in regards to the statue removal issue? That same speech also included the little gem of him wondering "what's next? Jefferson, Washington, where do you stop?" Well, here we are 3 years later, and they're going after Jefferson and Washington statues.

And going back to Charlottsville repuclian lawmakers have made it insanely difficult or impossible for confederate statues to be taken down or moved to less predominate places. And as someone pointed out earlier if we had taken down all the confederate generals the mobs/extremes wouldn't have the tacit support to take down the others. 

[Aris Katsaris]

Also going back to Charlottesville, remember Trump's "there were good people on both sides" in regards to the statue removal issue? That same speech also included the little gem of him wondering "what's next? Jefferson, Washington, where do you stop?" Well, here we are 3 years later, and they're going after Jefferson and Washington statues.

Once again: If I have to choose between either removing both Hitler and Churchill statues or removing neither of them, I will rather choose to remove both of them.

Taking down Jefferson and Washington is sad, but keeping the Confederate statues isn't just sad, it's horrific.

[DonaldD]

I suppose the most charitable interpretation of your words is that we should keep the statues in order to remember that the white Southern population were evil sons of bitches well into the 20th century, that they were the sort of people evil enough to WANT these statues erected. "Evil people erected these statues to their predecessors a century earlier: Though we'll never forget the evil of the Confederacy, there's the danger that we'll forget the evil of the people who wanted to honor it even well after its time had passed."

Is that the thing you people mean? That we should keep the statues to help us remember how evil the people who erected these statues were?

Pretty much.

If you go back to the Charlottesville discussion on this forum, I think you'll find I was okay with removal of the statues. What I objected to was their destruction. Many of those statues should have been removed, not destroyed, and then allowed to be placed in a venue where "the larger context" could be provided.

Also going back to Charlottesville, remember Trump's "there were good people on both sides" in regards to the statue removal issue? That same speech also included the little gem of him wondering "what's next? Jefferson, Washington, where do you stop?" Well, here we are 3 years later, and they're going after Jefferson and Washington statues.

Why?  Seriously.  What value is there in hunks of metal that have the specific forms of men, represented triumphally, who fought to enslave millions of people?  What is the benefit of grouping them all together in a warehouse of racist slavers, so that acolytes can in the future subsume themselves in the awesomeness of the statues' magnificence?  Do you believe the aesthetic of these statues, their inherent beauty, is such that it makes them worthy of being kept around - as opposed to, say, melted down to slag and repurposed into other works that might not be reminders (not just to clearly ignorant white folk, but also to to the descendants of those enslaved) of men who protected the rape, murder, possession, dispossession and forced labour of millions of people?

There is literally no meaning in a statue of William Bedford Forest that cannot be equally and better communicated by a) explaining the effects of racism in the USA and b) not even mentioning his name, never mind immortalizing his likeness.

[TheDeamon]

If you go back to the Charlottesville discussion on this forum, I think you'll find I was okay with removal of the statues. What I objected to was their destruction. Many of those statues should have been removed, not destroyed, and then allowed to be placed in a venue where "the larger context" could be provided.

Also going back to Charlottesville, remember Trump's "there were good people on both sides" in regards to the statue removal issue? That same speech also included the little gem of him wondering "what's next? Jefferson, Washington, where do you stop?" Well, here we are 3 years later, and they're going after Jefferson and Washington statues.

Why?  Seriously.  What value is there in hunks of metal that have the specific forms of men, represented triumphally, who fought to enslave millions of people?  What is the benefit of grouping them all together in a warehouse of racist slavers, so that acolytes can in the future subsume themselves in the awesomeness of the statues' magnificence?  Do you believe the aesthetic of these statues, their inherent beauty, is such that it makes them worthy of being kept around - as opposed to, say, melted down to slag and repurposed into other works that might not be reminders (not just to clearly ignorant white folk, but also to to the descendants of those enslaved) of men who protected the rape, murder, possession, dispossession and forced labour of millions of people?

There is literally no meaning in a statue of William Bedford Forest that cannot be equally and better communicated by a) explaining the effects of racism in the USA and b) not even mentioning his name, never mind immortalizing his likeness.

Lack of imagination on your part does not constitute a failing on mine. The statues themselves are a testament to the fact that such people existed, and that others venerated them for their heinous views. That you are incapable of conceiving of ways to subvert those statues for the purpose of instruction, speaks more to failings on your end than anything else.

Erasing these things doesn't prevent it from coming back in the future. Preserving them, and turning them into things worthy of mockery and derision, now that preserves the record, and sends a powerful message to those in the future, in more ways than one.

You don't cure the wrongs of history by hiding the evidence, that only perpetuates the problem.

Also in terms of subverting the purpose of things, as Hitler as already been brought up. We could use the concentration camps as an exemplar of this. They're currently being preserved as a reminder of how terrible the Nazis were. By the logic being exercised in this thread, they should instead be viewed as monuments to the Nazi's that should be destroyed post haste before anyone decides to follow in their footsteps.

[yossarian22c]

...
Also in terms of subverting the purpose of things, as Hitler as already been brought up. We could use the concentration camps as an exemplar of this. They're currently being preserved as a reminder of how terrible the Nazis were. By the logic being exercised in this thread, they should instead be viewed as monuments to the Nazi's that should be destroyed post haste before anyone decides to follow in their footsteps.

If the concentration camps were being maintained as "German culture" and the greatness of the Germanic peoples during WW2 then they should probably be destroyed as well. Its the Republican party in the South that has steadfastly refused to purpose these monuments and made it nearly impossible for any city, college, or place where they are located to do anything with them either. If you want to keep them in city squares as memorials to the brave dead who fought to preserve slavery then don't be surprised when at some point people decide to tear them down.

[TheDeamon]

If the concentration camps were being maintained as "German culture" and the greatness of the Germanic peoples during WW2 then they should probably be destroyed as well. Its the Republican party in the South that has steadfastly refused to purpose these monuments and made it nearly impossible for any city, college, or place where they are located to do anything with them either. If you want to keep them in city squares as memorials to the brave dead who fought to preserve slavery then don't be surprised when at some point people decide to tear them down.

At what point have I ever defended what the Republicans did on that front? I don't think anyone on this forum is going to defend what the Republicans did in those states. Most of us supported relocation of the statues back then, and still would support the relocations now.

It also still doesn't make the expanded destruction of monuments any more acceptable.

If they'd limited themselves to Confederate statues, I'd be sympathetic, as that would be "a proportionate response" to what was done. But what they're doing now is crossing lines that never should have been if they wanted to be taken seriously and fairly, and defending those who did it does them no favors.

[Kasandra]

Now that you mention it, why isn't there a statue of Tsar Nicholas II in Russia?  It would remind them of their history.  That same goes for the Napoleon, who could have statues all over Europe and in Egypt, Shah Pahlavi of Iran and every other deposed leader or failed revolutionary.  They all represent "history".  Back at home, Richard Nixon deserves one, too.  Eventually, someone will want to build one for George Bush to honor his horrific warmongering.  We Must Never Forget Our Heritage!

[DonaldD]

Erasing these things doesn't prevent it from coming back in the future. Preserving them, and turning them into things worthy of mockery and derision, now that preserves the record, and sends a powerful message to those in the future, in more ways than one.

You don't cure the wrongs of history by hiding the evidence, that only perpetuates the problem.

a) keeping these statues also doesn't prevent "it" from returning, so that's just silly, and
b) getting rid of statues whose very design venerates the people being memorialized is not hiding evidence - again, unless you are trying to point out the history of statue making in the Jim Crow south.

You also don't need hundreds of these statues and memorials around, and video or documentary representations could easily be used for "mockery" of the confederacy and slavery, if that is really the goal. 

[Kasandra]

Trump's already got a statue, but the erection didn't last very long.

[Aris Katsaris]

This discussion is again just a bloody distraction.

The conflict isn't actually about the trivial distinction of "destroying them" vs just "relocating them", the actual conflict has always been between people who want to remove them from their current places of honor vs people who want to keep them in those places of honor.

That's what happened in Charlottesville. You did NOT have on one side the people who said "Move the statue to a museum" and on the other side the people who said "Melt the *censored*er down". Instead you had on one side the people who want it to remain where it was, and the *OTHER* side was the one who said to remove it (and I don't think the latter people cared much about the trivial distinction between placing it in a museum vs melting it down, as long as it was removed one way or another).

If everyone was supposedly in favour of at the very least relocating them - then these statues wouldn't be still in the places they were toppled from.

[TheDrake]

On July 9, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was first read in New York City, and to celebrate it a group of patriots pulled down the statue, and eventually melted it down, making bullets to fight the British with.

The statue was King George. Guess those arseholes were destroying history too.

King George was the guy they were fighting against.

Lee was also the guy we were fighting against.

[TheDeamon]

King George was the guy they were fighting against.

Lee was also the guy we were fighting against.

Not at the time those statues were erected. That war was in the past by then, nobody was waging a shooting war against Lee by then.

[DonaldD]

Not at the time those statues were erected. That war was in the past by then, nobody was waging a shooting war against Lee by then.

Technically, nobody was waging a shooting war against King George, either.

But do you really want to make the respect of statuary contingent on the existence of a shooting war?  Because as far as black folks are concerned, the shooting war continues today, and its a war that waged on after the end of the civil war, with direct links from Jim Crow laws, lynchings, sundown towns, segregation, red-lining, and private industry penal systems to the ongoing over-incarceration of blacks, denial of voting rights and militarization of the security apparatus.

Your point is that, essentially, if there is an ongoing "shooting" war involving the forces championed by Lee, then unilaterally taking down those statues would be... acceptable.  And there is, so... tear down those statues, right?

Of course, that is the point, isn't it?  Statues to Lee and his ilk, meaning those who championed the enslavement of millions of black people, and who championed the right to continue to enslave black people in perpetuity, are anathema to the black population of the country, if only because of what they once stood for; but it's not ONLY that - it is also that the majority of these monuments were raised expressly as a big f-u to the black population who's lot was slowly improving in the generations following the civil war; and they are also symbols of a war that is still killing, incarcerating and keeping blacks dispossessed today. 

It seems like empathy died at some time in the last century in the USA.

[TheDeamon]

LOL

https://www.nhregister.com/metro/article/CancelYale-trending-on-Twitter-nationwide-15354862.php

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

The records of this period mention a flourishing slave trade in Madras. The nature of Yale's involvement is disputed. Some sources portray him as a heroic abolitionist, almost single-handedly ending the slave trade in Madras. Indeed, after English merchants began to kidnap young children and deport them to distant parts of the world, the administration of Fort St George stepped in and introduced laws to curb the practice. On February 2, 1688, Elihu Yale decreed that henceforth, slaves should be examined by the judges of the choultry before being transported. Transportation of young children, in particular, was made unlawful. On the other hand, some sources suggest that he permitted a law that at least ten slaves should be carried on every ship bound for Europe. In his capacity as judge he also on several occasions sentenced so-called "black criminals" to whipping and enslavement.

[DonaldD]

I'm sure there is a point to that post..?

[Fenring]

I'm sure there is a point to that post..?

I think he's saying that Yale needs to be torn down...or perhaps renamed, according to the BLM logic.

[Aris Katsaris]

His rhetoric is a double edged sword.

He's going for an "all or nothing" approach, when the people are now closer to accepting "all" rather than being willing to continue suffering "nothing".

When the argument is "Don't take down General Lee, or else you'll soon have to take down Jefferson and Washington" -- then the point also being made is simultaneously the opposite: "Dude, we're absolutely 100% certain we should take down General Lee, so what you're doing is actually convincing us that we should take down those other people as well."

That's the danger with slippery slope arguments: once you make the slippery slope argument, you can't then say "Nope it turns out those situations are vastly different after all, and there's no need to cancel Jefferson just because you're cancelling Lee"

If you don't want those other slave-owners also cancelled, you should be instead focusing on saying that a statue made to honor an evil cause is different than a statue meant to honor a person's positive achievements, regardless of the evil actions in that person's life. e.g. Perhaps Einstein was a bad husband and father -- but a statue to Einstein would be for his achievements as a physicist, not for his family life. Similarly a statue to Jefferson would be for things like his Declaration of Independence, not his slave-owning.

[TheDeamon]

His rhetoric is a double edged sword.

He's going for an "all or nothing" approach, when the people are now closer to accepting "all" rather than being willing to continue suffering "nothing".

It isn't my rhetoric though. I'm not the one toppling statues of Grant and Francis Scott Key for having owned slaves.

When the argument is "Don't take down General Lee, or else you'll soon have to take down Jefferson and Washington" -- then the point also being made is simultaneously the opposite: "Dude, we're absolutely 100% certain we should take down General Lee, so what you're doing is actually convincing us that we should take down those other people as well."

That's the danger with slippery slope arguments: once you make the slippery slope argument, you can't then say "Nope it turns out those situations are vastly different after all, and there's no need to cancel Jefferson just because you're cancelling Lee"

See, this is where things get slippery. There is evidence to suggest Lee was "overly harsh" with his slaves, but he also was coming at runing his plantation after a career in the US Army, where mind you, flogging was legal for use as a disciplinary option fortroops and sailors until January 1861. As such, it is extremely likely you'd find records of Lee either having ordered, or been within "one or two removes" from whites who had been flogged. In that context, he's not going to be very hesitant about using harsh measures against slaves if he'd also do it a white guy.
 
There were some other things he did with his family's slaves that were despicable, like failing to honor requests for slaves to be freed, breaking up said families when they objected to not being immediately freed(because the estate was deeply in the red), and other !^@& like that. What become relevant here is that 1) He was not an eager defector to the confederacy, he only sided with them because Virginia did. 2) The war ended for him when he surrendered, from what I'm aware of, from that point on he worked to help heal the wounds caused by the war. He didn't live for very long after the war concluded, passing in 1871 IIRC, but he was trying to make amends by all accounts. Even in the face of being very personally slighted by the Union in the form of his family estate in Arlington being turned into a cemetery for Union Soldiers, among other things. He had reasons to carry a grudge, but he made the effort to move on.

Which then becomes a challenge with General Lee and his positive achievements, and he had several. And trying to decipher to which thing a particular statue of him may have been commissioned. Not every statue of Lee is necessarily bad, a small number of them are probably quite good in their intentions, although there probably are a great number of them with more dubious intentions behind them.

But right now, all the narrative is at present is "He fought for the Confederacy, he's evil, tear it down."

Most of the other Confederate Generals may be entirely different stories, I'm sure a few of them never truly stopped fighting the war, and have at them. But the criteria people are using to pass judgement on the memorials and statues is extremely binary and black or white in their choice matrices which is really weird for the a social movement which seems to want to be all about those "shades of grey" on just about every other subject under the sun.

It's rank hypocrisy on one front, and alarming in other ways. They'll cry about how people in modern society should be excused their serious crimes because "it's society's fault" they turned out that way, but when dealing with historical figures in their historical context they can't be bothered to look at what "society's role" was in their decisions at the time.

If you don't want those other slave-owners also cancelled, you should be instead focusing on saying that a statue made to honor an evil cause is different than a statue meant to honor a person's positive achievements, regardless of the evil actions in that person's life. e.g. Perhaps Einstein was a bad husband and father -- but a statue to Einstein would be for his achievements as a physicist, not for his family life. Similarly a statue to Jefferson would be for things like his Declaration of Independence, not his slave-owning.

Most statues to Jefferson are for the Declaration of Independence and his other other roles, including PotUS, he fulfilled during the early days of the country. Same thing for George Washington, he's honored as the General of the Continental Army during the Civil War, and for being the first President of the United States. Their slave ownership isn't even on the proverbial RADAR for most people, and in some respects, that is a mistake as well, as it is another form of "erasing history" as people would rather not think about that particular fact. But this binary decision tree BS needs to stop, and anyone who is excusing people who are pursuing it really need to look at the person in their mirror very long and very hard.

[Fenring]

If you don't want those other slave-owners also cancelled, you should be instead focusing on saying that a statue made to honor an evil cause is different than a statue meant to honor a person's positive achievements, regardless of the evil actions in that person's life. e.g. Perhaps Einstein was a bad husband and father -- but a statue to Einstein would be for his achievements as a physicist, not for his family life. Similarly a statue to Jefferson would be for things like his Declaration of Independence, not his slave-owning.

Through this argument you paint yourself into a corner, as now you open the field to have to examine why a statue of a Confederate general is on display. You can no longer assign a reason (e.g. "to defend evil slavery") once you've opened the floodgates, because if you hear the reply of "we want this statue up because he was merciful to his enemies on the battlefield" just as an example, a rejoinder of "yeah but he was evil" contravenes your premise.

[Aris Katsaris]

Through this argument you paint yourself into a corner, as now you open the field to have to examine why a statue of a Confederate general is on display. You can no longer assign a reason (e.g. "to defend evil slavery") once you've opened the floodgates, because if you hear the reply of "we want this statue up because he was merciful to his enemies on the battlefield" just as an example, a rejoinder of "yeah but he was evil" contravenes your premise.

First of all, as I've said numerous times already, if we need to choose between tearing down all the statues or none of them, I'm with "all of them", without a doubt, so I'd urge you to be very careful about opposing middle solutions and compromises.

Secondly, yes ofcourse I can assign motivations. Saying that the reason a statue was erected matters, doesn't mean I need be agnostic about what the *censored*ing reason was, nor do I need pretend that any random bull*censored* excuse has any relevance. If you really want to establish a formal process (which isn't really in the cards anymore) you could have opinion polls asking people what the person is famous enough to have deserved a statue.

If the answer of most people is 'He fought on the side that wanted to keep millions of people enslaved' then the statue goes down.

[Kasandra]

If you don't want those other slave-owners also cancelled, you should be instead focusing on saying that a statue made to honor an evil cause is different than a statue meant to honor a person's positive achievements, regardless of the evil actions in that person's life. e.g. Perhaps Einstein was a bad husband and father -- but a statue to Einstein would be for his achievements as a physicist, not for his family life. Similarly a statue to Jefferson would be for things like his Declaration of Independence, not his slave-owning.

Through this argument you paint yourself into a corner, as now you open the field to have to examine why a statue of a Confederate general is on display. You can no longer assign a reason (e.g. "to defend evil slavery") once you've opened the floodgates, because if you hear the reply of "we want this statue up because he was merciful to his enemies on the battlefield" just as an example, a rejoinder of "yeah but he was evil" contravenes your premise.

Basically, if you can find anything good in a person's background, no matter how great the evil of their legacy is, you can build a statue in their honor.  Most of the Confederate Generals for whom military bases have been named were pretty poor leaders who lost most or all of the battles they led their troops into.  We could honor them for killing fewer US soldiers than they would have if they had won, which was a good thing.  I could see having a statue in their honor if that was the inscription on the pedestal.

[DonaldD]

The only reason Lee is famous is because he led Confederate troops during the civil war.

That's it.

If you asked anybody today, or even 100 years ago, who he was and what he did, you would NOT get "he served in the army of the USA, basically inn the engineers corps," or "he ran West Point for 3 years," or "he did reconnaissance work in the Mexican-American war."  Dozens (hundreds?) of statues and memorials to the man were not erected during the Jim Crow south because he was involved in building a bridge or a fort, or because he administered West Point for a few years.

No, the one memorable thing he did was lead the Confederate forces.  That's it.  And that is what his mythology is built on.  Famously honourable, leading the doomed south against the unrelenting forces of the north, against incredible odds, almost pulling victory from the teeth of defeat.  A proud son of the south, a symbol of resistance against all things "Yankee", even today.

And every single monument to the man is built for the purpose of celebrating that work.  A work, I will repeat, in service to the states, one of who's primary stated objectives was to maintain the enslavement of millions of people. Let's not pretend otherwise.  It's not just unbecoming...  It's also insulting to everybody's intelligence, but more importantly, it's insulting to the black population of your country who recognize that many, if not most, of these statues and memorials were erected primarily as a celebration of their historical subjugation, and as tools to continue that subjugation.

[ScottF]

I don't really think many of the people tearing down and destroying things are troubled by specific reasoning, or thinking about it much at all. Legendary blues guitarist Stevie Ray Vaughn's statue in Austin is one of the latest casualties. I suppose his spin on Texas blues can be considered cultural propagation of original blues artists. And he is white so...burn it!

There are a small number of "troubling" monuments being destroyed for legitimate (or legitimately perceived at least) reasons. The majority of the destruction we're seeing is not that. It's simply easier to destroy than create.

[DonaldD]

I don't really think many of the people tearing down and destroying things are troubled by specific reasoning, or thinking about it much at all. Legendary blues guitarist Stevie Ray Vaughn's statue in Austin is one of the latest casualties. I suppose his spin on Texas blues can be considered cultural propagation of original blues artists. And he is white so...burn it!

There are a small number of "troubling" monuments being destroyed for legitimate (or legitimately perceived at least) reasons. The majority of the destruction we're seeing is not that. It's simply easier to destroy than create.

And where did you find the statistics on this?  It's an interesting hypothesis, but one that could only be borne out via selective reading (or possibly highly curated reading)

Much like the generalization that the vast majority of protesters are also antifa and looters.

I also am impressed with your thorough understanding of the motivations of the protesters, which required you to ignore the stated rationales for tearing down the monuments (rationales consistent with decades long political attempts at removal) while using a crystal ball to gaze into their true inner motivations... this post would seem to be an exercise in confirmation bias rather than reasoned analysis.

[Fenring]

The only reason Lee is famous is because he led Confederate troops during the civil war.

That's it.

If you asked anybody today, or even 100 years ago, who he was and what he did, you would NOT get "he served in the army of the USA, basically inn the engineers corps," or "he ran West Point for 3 years," or "he did reconnaissance work in the Mexican-American war."  Dozens (hundreds?) of statues and memorials to the man were not erected during the Jim Crow south because he was involved in building a bridge or a fort, or because he administered West Point for a few years.

That may be true of Lee, but as ScottF mentioned I don't think these mobs are doing a thorough study of history to make sure they are picking the correct targets, and weighing the pros and cons of each historical figure. The fact that Lee may be 'right on target' is sort of beside the point, because I'm sure you can find plenty of famous people from the South pre-civil war who were both "part of the system of slavery" and also hailed as folk heroes. As an example, should Davy Crockett be considered to be a historic villain? Is it enough to show that someone was Southern, and didn't oppose slavery outright, to call them a villain? The current slogans on social media include things like "Those who remain silent are on the side of the oppressor". Someone I know IRL has a sign in his neighborhood publicly posted that reads "Silence is violence." Once you go down that road, all you need to do is not be an abolitionist and you're on the Evil Scale. Maybe not as bad as a Confederate general by this calculus, but still evil enough to be visually cancelled, I'm sure. I mean, just to be safe, many people in the South now may have been around during Jim Crow times, so they are probably on the list as well. Maybe just restart the civil war, just to be safe.

I'm going a bit silly on the specifics, only to show that a mentality of historically punitive actions is more or less the type of idea that actually occurs in countries with frequent coups and revolts, or like places in the Mid-East where territorial disputes are alive and well centuries after the fact. There's a joke in Henry V, by Shakespeare, where they dredge up an old document proving some historical claim to land, which Henry uses to justify invading France. This sort of reasoning is a fig leaf for the fact that he was spoiling for a fight in the first place, most likely to prove his mettle as king and also for the spoils of victory. And this is really my point: when people are spoiling for a fight, there is more going on than the particular objections they make to justify an action. In Henry's case, it may have been as simple as "warlike Harry", whereas in our case now we are clearly dealing with anger and other issues. But trying to rationalize and intellectualize every target of the anger is almost certainly misguided. 

[yossarian22c]

https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/06/24/882765659/unrest-in-madison-overnight-leaves-statues-toppled-state-senator-injured

Two statues toppled, including one of an abolitionist. Several windows smashed at the state Capitol. A state senator attacked by a group of demonstrators. A small fire set outside a local jail.

I won't argue that protesters in many areas aren't going too far. Clearly they did in Madison last night.

They were protesting the arrest of a black man.

The arrest of a Black man earlier Tuesday sparked the unrest. He was taken into custody after bringing a megaphone and a baseball bat into a restaurant on the city's Capitol Square.