Nationwide Removal of Confederate Statues

[PleaseBlitz]

4 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

 

I want to agree with this.  But I think ultimately it should be a state decision.  Too many local shenanigans to worry about.

 

Why?  What local shenanigans?  Are there not state shenanigans that are far more shenaniganistic?  This seems to be where conservatives are supposed to reflexively shout "tyranny!"

Edited August 21, 2018 by PleaseBlitz

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, Kilmer17 said:

 

I want to agree with this.  But I think ultimately it should be a state decision.  Too many local shenanigans to worry about.

 

I feel you, but if you dont, I feel we'll get more of what just happened in NC.  State should never of locked down any democratic process on this issue like that, the backlash was inevitable.

[Kilmer17]

Just now, BenningRoadSkin said:

This whole forum is about personal opinion. First, you said I personally attacked you, when I did not. Then you defend the statues being up, only to now get upset when I repeated what you have expressed through this thread.

 

I do not know what the logical fallacy is or where I have attacked you. I said, and will say it again, have fun!

When you said " have fun supporting fascist historical figures, it suits you".  

 

But maybe I mistook that phrase.  What did you mean by that quote if not implying that I was a fascist?

 

[twa]

51 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

I'd be fine with the sharing damages and restoration costs if it's spread out among the people that actually toppled the statue versus standing around. 

 

Good, since that is generally the law.

[Kilmer17]

2 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I feel you, but if you dont, I feel we'll get more of what just happened in NC.  State should never of locked down any democratic process on this issue like that, the backlash was inevitable.

It's a tough one.  If a small town in the valley of VA decides tomorrow to put up a NEW statue, should the state allow it if the majority of that town wants it?

3 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Why?  What local shenanigans?  Are there not state shenanigans that are far more shenaniganistic?  This seems to be where conservatives are supposed to reflexively shout "tyranny!"

I'm a states rights fan for sure, but see above for an example.  I suppose though that statewide shenanigans could cause mroe damage though.

[Zguy28]

Cold logic vs. heated emotion. This always ends well.

[PleaseBlitz]

1 minute ago, Kilmer17 said:

It's a tough one.  If a small town in the valley of VA decides tomorrow to put up a NEW statue, should the state allow it if the majority of that town wants it?

I'm a states rights fan for sure, but see above for an example.  I suppose though that statewide shenanigans could cause mroe damage though.

 

I think Virginia is a great example.  I think if a small (or whatever size) town in the valley wants to put up a new statute, yes, they should be able to do that.  Meantime, Alexandria should be able to take down the statute in Old Town without having to sue the state (and rename Jefferson Davis Highway).  

[SoulSkin]

It's interesting that in Richmond all of the statues except for Lee were privately funded, and eventually turned over to the city. The state actually pays for maintenance for the Lee monument and the area around it. The city takes care of the rest of them. I'm 99% sure that if it were truly up the the city's citizens via voting, Jefferson Davis would be moved at the very least. That's what the recent Monument Avenue Commission recommended, with signage and other things for contextualization at the other statues. 

[Bozo the kKklown]

2 minutes ago, SoulSkin said:

It's interesting that in Richmond all of the statues except for Lee were privately funded

 

That's what is pretty nuts about the confederate movement in America.

 

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/8/18/16165160/confederate-monuments-history-charlottesville-white-supremacy

Quote

But the story of the monuments is even stranger than many people realize. Few if any of the monuments went through any of the approval procedures that we now commonly apply to public art. Typically, groups like the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC), which claimed to represent local community sentiment (whether they did or did not), funded, erected, and dedicated the monuments. As a consequence, contemporaries, especially African Americans, who objected to the erection of monuments had no realistic opportunity to voice their opposition.

 

Most Confederate monuments were, in short, the result of private groups colonizing public space.

 

Over the past decade, Southern legislatures have passed laws requiring approval from state legislatures before any historical monuments can be moved, removed, or altered — thereby freezing those private decisions in place.

 

[Going Commando]

2 hours ago, Llevron said:

The confederacy were traitors to America and lost a war they started (over the right to subjugate other human beings). I dont see the point in them having statues in their honor. Doesn't make any sense to me. 

 

Well, the noble purpose is to honor civic ideals like valor, sacrifice, and excellence in a field.

 

I'm against taking down most Confederate statuary, especially unlawfully, like they did in this instance.  Nevermind that they broke the law, I think it's an attempt to sanitize history and shuffle it out of sight and mind.  I am in favor of having history displayed in the public space, especially with works of art.  Some Confederate statuary is inappropriate and unworthy, but most of it is of a generic soldier honoring their sacrifice in the war, or of specific officers who were some of our greatest soldiers.  Martial valor and sacrifice are worth commemorating, and great nations commemorate valor in an honorable enemy.  The Romans put Vercingetorix on their coinage.

 

For me the issue is the unfair lack of statuary to honor the other side of the war, giving a completely one-sided depiction of history.  I would like to see new statues and monuments erected to honor black heroes and their virtuous sacrifices, as well as that of the Union soldiery and leadership from that era, and have those placed in the same public spaces as the Confederate monuments.  We should be telling the entire history, and we should be making much more of an effort to remember and honor these figures.  Nearly 200,000 black men served in the Union Army and Navy during the war.  Their history and contributions are forgotten.  They should be commemorated because that is not something most people know.  And I would also like to see statuary created to honor the contributions of women too.  We have a lot of heroes and virtues embodied by women worth honoring.

[Bozo the kKklown]

21 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

When you said " have fun supporting fascist historical figures, it suits you".  

 

But maybe I mistook that phrase.  What did you mean by that quote if not implying that I was a fascist?

 

1

Fascism is an ideology.

 

I could have said "have fun supporting Republican/Democratic/Conservative/Liberal/Socialist/Communist/Authoritarian figures, it suits you," and it would have been the same statement in terms of it being an ideology. That is not a personal attack and you know that.

3 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

or of specific officers who were some of our greatest soldiers

nope.

3 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

For me the issue is the unfair lack of statuary to honor the other side of the war, giving a completely one-sided depiction of history.  I would like to see new statues and monuments erected to honor black heroes and their virtuous sacrifices, as well as that of the Union soldiery and leadership from that era, and have those placed in the same public spaces as the Confederate monuments.

 

That's why the "honor our history" stuff fails for me. They are not interested in talking about history, they want to support traitors and ignore that these idiots died for a horrible cause.

Edited August 21, 2018 by BenningRoadSkin

[SoulSkin]

3 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

As a consequence, contemporaries, especially African Americans, who objected to the erection of monuments had no realistic opportunity to voice their opposition

 

Add to that, the hard labor that went into moving materials and erecting a lot of them was done by said African Americans, at least in Richmond.

[Jumbo]

brief interlude

 

 

to anyone who extends in-thread exchanges, in any topic, about who is/isn't trolling/insulting etc.

 

 

1. people help themselves here by reading rule 5 (well, all the rules) carefully and trying to use their prefrontal cortex instead of their limbic system 

2. people will spin an interpretation of our rules to suit their emo state per the argument of the moment--stop that---don't play mod

3. moving forward, since these are tiring OT incidents,  if you think a rule has been sufficiently violated, just report it as we ask (gasp)---don't play mod

 

 

you can get a vacation by playing mod

 

 

ty for your help--now back to topic

 

 

and where's my statue? 

 

getting impatient

 

[Renegade7]

19 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

It's a tough one.  If a small town in the valley of VA decides tomorrow to put up a NEW statue, should the state allow it if the majority of that town wants it?

 

I mean, I guess it depends on the statue, right? 

 

Freedom is very hard to regulate, but if some small VA town wanted to put up a new confederate statue, I'd imagine Northam would say the trouble aint worth it and try to stop it.  I get the jist of what you are saying, why I try to take this case by case even when a part of me is foaming at the mouth about it.

 

But our society''s line is moving on this issue concerning confederate statues. By time all the public ones are gone, it'll be because the country isn't 50-50 on it anymore.

[Renegade7]

37 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Why?  What local shenanigans?  Are there not state shenanigans that are far more shenaniganistic?  This seems to be where conservatives are supposed to reflexively shout "tyranny!"

 

Dear God, I don't ever want to play you in scrabble 

[Bozo the kKklown]

18 minutes ago, SoulSkin said:

 

Add to that, the hard labor that went into moving materials and erecting a lot of them was done by said African Americans, at least in Richmond.

It's unreal, but this is America in 2018.

[PleaseBlitz]

34 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

 

That's why the "honor our history" stuff fails for me. They are not interested in talking about history, they want to support traitors and ignore that these idiots died for a horrible cause.

 

Additionally, most of the confederate monuments were erected during 2 time periods.  

 

https://www.splcenter.org/news/2018/06/04/splc-report-more-1700-monuments-place-names-and-other-symbols-honoring-confederacy-remain

 

Quote

The report also identifies two distinct periods that saw a significant rise in the dedication of monuments and other symbols. The first began around 1900, amid the period in which Southern states were enacting Jim Crow laws to disenfranchise the newly freed African Americans and re-segregate society. The second began in the early 1950s and lasted through the 1960s, as the civil rights movement led to a backlash among segregationists. 

 

They were erected as a way to tell the black population to "know their place."

[Zguy28]

My aunt lives right over in Westmoreland county VA and I was left speechless when she openly told me one day (we were at a funeral and discussing her son, my cousin) "he has his difficulties, but at least he didn't marry negro girl." I was like "What year is this?"

[Renegade7]

4 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

They were erected as a way to tell the black population to "know their place."

Really hard to have discussion without acknowledging this key point.

[Momma There Goes That Man]

1 hour ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

Martial valor and sacrifice are worth commemorating, and great nations commemorate valor in an honorable enemy.

 

What made the South an honorable enemy? I don't think they were and I don't think that we need to publicly commemorate them with statues which are viewed as celebratory. Put them in museums along with other Civil War era items. Use statues to celebrate the real heroes of the war that fought on the victorious American side. 

Edited August 21, 2018 by Momma There Goes That Man

[twa]

3 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

Use statues to erect the real heroes of the war that fought on the victorious American side. 

 

Wait, now they weren't Americans?

 

You people change your minds a lot. 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

4 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Wait, now they weren't Americans?

 

You people change your minds a lot. 

 

No, they were not. They chose to secede from America and not be part of it. Then they chose to fight America and become our enemies. 

[PleaseBlitz]

7 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Wait, now they weren't Americans?

 

You people change your minds a lot. 

 

They were Americans in the sense that their short-lived country was situation in the Americas.  So they were Americans in the same sense that Mexicans are Americans.  

 

 

[Going Commando]

6 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

No, they were not. They chose to secede from America and not be part of it. Then they chose to fight America and become our enemies. 

 

I think you know this is wrong.  Lincoln refused to acknowledge their secession and argued that they were American citizens of American states in rebellion.  This was a crucial interpretation because to acknowledge their secession as legitimate would have destroyed his justification for going to war with them.  It would have been the Union invading a sovereign state.

[Larry]

Just had a patient's mother inform me that she is a civil war expert. And the civil war wasn't about slavery, it was because the North didn't have any ports, and wanted the South's ports.