Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1087345 Posts in 72018 Topics- by 19243 Members - Latest Member: CABurton159
Jump to:  
The Trombone ForumPractice BreakChit-ChatPurely Politics(Moderators: bhcordova, RedHotMama, BFW) Conderacy hero statues, ingrained racism etc
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5  All   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Conderacy hero statues, ingrained racism etc  (Read 2763 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Arrowhead99
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Aug 28, 2015
Posts: 165

View Profile
« Reply #20 on: Sep 08, 2017, 05:20AM »

Sure. Here's what they engraved when they raised one of the statues.

http://baltimoretimes-online.com/news/2017/may/12/new-orleans-begins-removing-racist-confederate-mon/

Can't get much plainer than that. "White supremacy" sounds pretty damn close to 'remind the blacks where their place is."

Good find. It's a shame because I'm sure the individuals depicted would have totally abhorred this concept!
Logged
Arrowhead99
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Aug 28, 2015
Posts: 165

View Profile
« Reply #21 on: Sep 08, 2017, 05:26AM »

That is a bunch of malarkey. I'll gladly rebut it, but Robcat beat me to it. All this mythology about the nobility of the Southern cause came long after the war, during the Jim Crow era, to suppress and terrorize freed blacks in a new way, and during opposition to black civil rights. That's when most of the statues were raised, and thus they commemorate hate. They're monuments to lynching, posing as monuments to slavery.

But the big question is, Why are you defending them? What's your affinity for the people you're defending? These statues obviously aren't of any real historical importance, so what is your stake in this? Why are you defending the flag of treason? Why does it bother you that they're taken down? Why are statues commemorating traitors and slavers an issue you would step into the breach to defend?

I think your response is malarkey. My question is, why are you just summing the Civil War up to a simplistic "it was just about slavery; plain and simple" Not a single historian is going to back you up on that. Also, your acting like "the North were perfect angels; the South was not". This is ******** plain and simple. If you don't know why folks even fought in the Civil War then you need to do a shitload of reading my friend.
Logged
wgwbassbone
*
Offline Offline

Location: West Hartford, CT
Joined: Jan 19, 2007
Posts: 1846

View Profile
« Reply #22 on: Sep 08, 2017, 05:43AM »

So morbid, that it only became an issue when the snowflake democrats told you it was an issue, and you had to jump on board. LOL!

As someone who grew up in the South my thoughts are the same as the Op's and have been for decades. Your statement, based on '16-17' politics, is ignorant at best.
Logged

Holton TR 180 MV 1 and 1/2G
MrPillow
Organologique et plus!

*
Offline Offline

Location: Newport, RI
Joined: Jan 14, 2008
Posts: 1571

View Profile
« Reply #23 on: Sep 08, 2017, 06:17AM »

Maybe we should just add a big plaque to each statue that says "racist ****" so there's no obscurity as to what side they're on.
Logged

King 3B/F Silversonic - King 608F - Holton Paul Whiteman Model
Russ White

*
Offline Offline

Location: Orange City, Fl
Joined: Feb 27, 2007
Posts: 5181

View Profile
« Reply #24 on: Sep 08, 2017, 07:35AM »


 My question is, why are you just summing the Civil War up to a simplistic "it was just about slavery; plain and simple"


Maybe because that is the reason stated in the secession documents of EVERY state that seceded and is prevalent in statements made by every primary politician of the Southern states.
Logged

Better than yesterday, better yet tomorrow.
elmsandr

*
Offline Offline

Location: Howell, MI
Joined: Apr 12, 2004
Posts: 3324

View Profile
« Reply #25 on: Sep 08, 2017, 08:45AM »

Good find. It's a shame because I'm sure the individuals depicted would have totally abhorred this concept!
Uh, no, they wouldn't.

You are way wrong.

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

Feel free to consult some actual historians.  Might I recommend you start with This guy, who is readily available to read in many popular sources and on twitter.  https://history.princeton.edu/people/kevin-m-kruse

It was about slavery.  Period.  End of topic.  Really.

*before you consider me a crazy lib northerner...  realize that my family is from Texas and my middle name is Davis...  I don't have handy access to all the geneology right now, but let's just say we weren't exactly wearing blue.

Cheers,
Andy
Logged

Andrew Elms
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9956

View Profile
« Reply #26 on: Sep 08, 2017, 12:03PM »

Maybe because that is the reason stated in the secession documents of EVERY state that seceded and is prevalent in statements made by every primary politician of the Southern states.


That's not exactly true.

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

Quote
Among the ordinances of secession passed by the individual states, those of three—Texas, Alabama, and Virginia—specifically mentioned the plight of the 'slaveholding states' at the hands of northern abolitionists. The rest make no mention of the slavery issue, and are often brief announcements of the dissolution of ties by the legislatures.[78] However, at least four states—South Carolina,[79] Mississippi,[80] Georgia,[81] and Texas[82] also passed lengthy and detailed explanations of their causes for secession, all of which laid the blame squarely on the movement to abolish slavery and that movement's influence over the politics of the northern states. The southern states believed slaveholding was a constitutional right because of the Fugitive slave clause of the Constitution.

The ordinances of secession tended to be brief and legalistic. However the states that did produce 'statements' all gave slavery as the reason.
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51144
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: Sep 08, 2017, 12:08PM »

There were issues building before the Civil War related to Slavery.  One of the first was that Slavery would only be allowed south of the Mason-Dixon Line (this line is the southern border of Pennsylvania and the northern border of Maryland).  We had the Constitution restricting the importation of slaves after 1808.

The Southern states were afraid the Republicans would force them to free their slaves, especially with Lincoln (a known Abolitionist) as their President.  So in a First Strike they chose to secede.  Lincoln used arms to try to force them back in the US.

Had the Confederacy not seceded, there would have been a lot of arguments and fights in the Congress, but I'm sure eventually Slavery would die of its own weight as it did in many other countries who did not have a Civil War over it.

But the statues were put up to remind the Blacks that if things had been different they would still be slaves.  Same goes for the Confederate Battle Flag that was flown from several Southern state capitals.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9956

View Profile
« Reply #28 on: Sep 08, 2017, 12:15PM »

I think your response is malarkey. My question is, why are you just summing the Civil War up to a simplistic "it was just about slavery; plain and simple" Not a single historian is going to back you up on that. Also, your acting like "the North were perfect angels; the South was not". This is ******** plain and simple. If you don't know why folks even fought in the Civil War then you need to do a shitload of reading my friend.


You may do a lot of reading, but you're apparently reading the wrong stuff. Without slavery the war wouldn't have happened.

There's no question there was some animosity between the North and South, partly for economic and cultural reasons, but mostly because the North had developed an economy that didn't rely on slavery.

But if you want to know the cause of the war, look at the negotiations to try to prevent it, and to prevent dissolution of the union. The arguments centered primarily on expansion of slavery to new states and territories, and enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act.

I'm familiar with the arguments you've made, because they're made repeatedly by neo-Confederate sympathizers. They are, by and large, nonsense that was added onto history later to support the "Lost Cause" narrative, whose purpose was to support white supremacy and suppress blacks. It isn't a legitimate part of history.

A couple of examples, from Wikipedia:

Quote
The tariff issue was and is sometimes cited–long after the war–by Lost Cause historians and neo-Confederate apologists. In 1860–61 none of the groups that proposed compromises to head off secession raised the tariff issue.[42] Pamphleteers North and South rarely mentioned the tariff,[43] and when some did, for instance, Matthew Fontaine Maury[44] and John Lothrop Motley,[45] they were generally writing for a foreign audience.

Quote
Historian James McPherson writes concerning states' rights and other non-slavery explanations:

While one or more of these interpretations remain popular among the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other Southern heritage groups, few professional historians now subscribe to them. Of all these interpretations, the states'-rights argument is perhaps the weakest. It fails to ask the question, states' rights for what purpose? States' rights, or sovereignty, was always more a means than an end, an instrument to achieve a certain goal more than a principle.[47]

In other words, the neo-Confederates, whose arguments you may be unwittingly propagating, went back and found some minor beefs between the North and South and elevated them to the status of major causes.

Surely, you'll admit that the Civil War wouldn't have been joined in the absence of slavery.
« Last Edit: Sep 08, 2017, 11:50PM by Piano man » Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
sonicsilver
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Apr 11, 2016
Posts: 509

View Profile
« Reply #29 on: Sep 09, 2017, 01:32PM »

Would something like Memento Park in Budapest be an acceptable solution to both sides?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memento_Park

Heritage and history are preserved, while representations of cultural divisiveness from the past are removed from civic life.

No need for Red Guard/Taliban statue vandalism on one side or fancy dress rallies on the other.
Logged
BGuttman
Mad Chemist

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Londonderry, NH, USA
Joined: Dec 12, 2000
Posts: 51144
"Almost Professional"


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: Sep 09, 2017, 01:57PM »

I like that idea.  If you don't want to look at the monuments, you don't have to go there.
Logged

Bruce Guttman
Solo Trombone, Hollis Town Band
Merrimack Valley Philharmonic Orch. President 2017-2018
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: Sep 09, 2017, 03:53PM »

I like that idea.  If you don't want to look at the monuments, you don't have to go there.

Here in the Deep Red, where probably all or damn near all of these statues stand, as I understand it we also have plenty of Confederate graveyards. That's where the Confederate Civil War statuary is proposed or slated to go, or has gone for every case I'm aware enough to know that sort of detail (admittedly that's certainly not an exhaustive list). If that's what's happening the weeping and wailing over the loss of our history is pure histrionics (as if the notion even makes any sense to begin with). The loss of the prominent reverence regarding this particular segment of history may be real, but all attempting to force it on others does is to sour the larger sentiment all the more.
 
But then seeing those boys in grey so proudly displayed certainly does seem to be affirming for a lot of nastiness ... not that that would have anything to do with the reasons for the histrionic weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth or anything like that of course.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
Stan

*
Offline Offline

Location: Louisville, KY
Joined: Mar 2, 2003
Posts: 560

View Profile
« Reply #32 on: Sep 14, 2017, 09:49AM »

I, a Southerner, had a very informative chat with my girlfriend, an Ohio Yankee, about this very topic.  I think there are some fundamental truths here that need to be laid out:

1.  The Civil War was about slavery.  Period.  Full Stop.  The primary source materials and oral texts clearly show this, time and time again.  It was not about states rights or lost causes or anything like that.  It was about the institution of slavery in America.

2.  A giant portion of Southerners absolutely can NOT and WILL NOT be able to accept #1.  There has been a systematic (and systemic) indoctrination in the South since 1865 that the war wasn't about slavery, and that the Confederate States were noble pillars of "real American" values instead of despot traitors to the Republic.  It would take multiple generations to eliminate this pervasive lie in the Southern mind.

3.  A giant portion of non-Southerns are absolutely and completely incapable of accepting #2.  They just can't do it.  They haven't lived, steeped in that lie for generations on end, and they deride their Southern brothers and sisters for not being able to "see the truth."


So there you have it.  You've got entrenched populations of people who literally cannot accept that their childhood heroes, whose likenesses are molded on statues in their towns, were racist, bigoted traitors.  Accepting that destroys the narrative they've been taught for several generations.  Accepting that fundamentally alters how and what the see in themselves.  Like Dusty's kneejerk "snowflake" reaction, they are not capable of taking this as anything more than a direct assault against their heritage.  It's the equivalent of making a racial slur against someone else.  And it's all founded on this believe that their "heritage" is something more noble than hundreds of thousands of people willing to die because their race was superior.  The Confederates were the Nazis of the nineteenth century. 

To the folks in group #3, who see the Confederates as Nazis, it's hateful to enshrine that in the public sphere.  Same to the descendants of those enslaved. 

So take them down and put them together in a memorial site, funded by the people who want to keep the "heritage."  And start educating Southern children by national standards.  Ever wonder why the South resists national educational standards so fiercely?  It's harder to ignore the truth that way.
Logged
schlitzbeer
*
Offline Offline

Location: Bremerton, WA
Joined: Oct 2, 2012
Posts: 215

View Profile
« Reply #33 on: Sep 14, 2017, 02:10PM »

The statues represent a time in our country where bad things happened. They are examples for teachable moments. As ugly as that time was, the monuments need to stay right where they are to remind us of that past. Large parts of our country still operate as racist enclaves. We don’t need, or should spend millions to move them to cemeteries and battlefields. We’ve got a country of *******, hung up on bathrooms, monuments, and the dipshits that need to be politically correct. We need to build new infrastructure, tend to our waterways, health reform, education reform, and goddamnit, PULL UP YOUR PANTS!!!
Logged
Piano man
*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Feb 10, 2006
Posts: 9956

View Profile
« Reply #34 on: Sep 15, 2017, 01:37AM »

The statues represent a time in our country where bad things happened. They are examples for teachable moments. As ugly as that time was, the monuments need to stay right where they are to remind us of that past. Large parts of our country still operate as racist enclaves. We don’t need, or should spend millions to move them to cemeteries and battlefields. We’ve got a country of *******, hung up on bathrooms, monuments, and the dipshits that need to be politically correct. We need to build new infrastructure, tend to our waterways, health reform, education reform, and goddamnit, PULL UP YOUR PANTS!!!

So you wouldn't tear down a Hitler statue because it would cost too much?

A lot of people would do it for free. Seems like a false argument.
Logged

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so." --Mark Twain
elmsandr

*
Offline Offline

Location: Howell, MI
Joined: Apr 12, 2004
Posts: 3324

View Profile
« Reply #35 on: Sep 15, 2017, 05:40AM »

The statues represent a time in our country where bad things happened. They are examples for teachable moments. As ugly as that time was, the monuments need to stay right where they are to remind us of that past. Large parts of our country still operate as racist enclaves. We don’t need, or should spend millions to move them to cemeteries and battlefields. We’ve got a country of *******, hung up on bathrooms, monuments, and the dipshits that need to be politically correct. We need to build new infrastructure, tend to our waterways, health reform, education reform, and goddamnit, PULL UP YOUR PANTS!!!
But we need to continue spending to keep monuments to making sure that the minorities understand "their place"?  That's what they are there for.  They bother a lot of people, always have.  They help to enforce those racist enclaves.  They should never have been there, and they have little historical or artistic value.

I'm all for actually spending the money to add a slave in chains to each one.  Then I might actually carry the right meaning.  How do you think that would go over?

Cheers,
Andy
Logged

Andrew Elms
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Offline Offline

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 18583
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: Sep 15, 2017, 06:24AM »

The statues represent a time in our country where bad things happened. They are examples for teachable moments. As ugly as that time was, the monuments need to stay right where they are to remind us of that past. Large parts of our country still operate as racist enclaves. We don’t need, or should spend millions to move them to cemeteries and battlefields. We’ve got a country of *******, hung up on bathrooms, monuments, and the dipshits that need to be politically correct. We need to build new infrastructure, tend to our waterways, health reform, education reform, and goddamnit, PULL UP YOUR PANTS!!!

IOW, if only people would behave the way you'd like them to we'd all get a long fine ... and save some money which we could allocate for increased productivity/efficiency.
 
Unfortunately people clearly don't behave the way you'd like, and basing sociopolitical decisions on how things ought to be tends not to work out so well. It just affirms certain people and alienates other people, and it shouldn't be hard to imagine how the costs that builds up can be rather more than if you base social/political policy on how things actually are instead.
Logged

- Feeding a troll just gives it a platform and amplifies its voice.
 
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.  - Richard Feynman
- He who knows not and knows not that he knows not is a fool.   - Confucius
elmsandr

*
Offline Offline

Location: Howell, MI
Joined: Apr 12, 2004
Posts: 3324

View Profile
« Reply #37 on: Sep 15, 2017, 07:10AM »

Timely stuff...  Follow the thread for some pictures and links, but I'll paste the text here.  Tell me again why we should continue to have confederate memorabilia in the public square?

https://twitter.com/KevinMKruse/status/908677172147179520

Quote
On this date in 1963, four little girls were killed when white supremacists bombed the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham.

The church had been a rallying point in that year's demonstrations, a symbol of civil rights for activists and segregationists alike.

When the bomb went off, it destroyed a lot of the church. It an eerie touch, the explosion blew out Jesus's face in a stained glass window.

More tragically, the explosion killed four little girls who had been preparing for Bible Study lessons in the church basement.

As a crowd gathered to pull the bodies from the rubble, white teenagers taunted them with a Confederate flag & a "Go Back to Africa" sign.

When some black kids threw stones at the white teens, the police moved in to apprehend the black kids. One ran away & was shot in the back.

At the same time, across town, another pair of white teens pulled up alongside two young black boys who were riding their bikes.

One of the white boys pulled out a pistol, put two bullets into a thirteen-year-old black boy's head and chest, and then drove away.

Just three weeks earlier, Martin Luther King Jr. had delivered his famous "I Have a Dream" speech at the March on Washington.

But the violence that day in Birmingham -- by Klansmen, by ordinary white teens, even by the police -- showed how far away that dream was.

In a sign of how far off it was, the pursuit of justice for the church bombing took decades, even though the FBI IDed the bombers in 1965.

It took fourteen years before the first bomber was convicted, and nearly four decades before two others were brought to justice too.

The prosecutor of those last two bombers, I should note, is currently the Democratic nominee for Senate in Alabama:

It took decades before the men responsible for the bombing were brought to justice, but in the short term there was a different reckoning.

Charles Morgan, a white lawyer in Birmingham, spoke at a white club the day after the bombing, noting that they were *all* responsible.

It's a remarkable speech. As we confront white supremacy once again today, it's worth listening to again in full:

As recent events show, we are still in a very similar place.  Imagine if we had really ended slavery with the end of the civil war and just reckoned with it then.  For fun, look at how many black southern congress members there were in 1875 and compare it to 1945.  It's almost like all these monuments and lies had a purpose and it actually worked.

Cheers,
Andy

Logged

Andrew Elms
schlitzbeer
*
Offline Offline

Location: Bremerton, WA
Joined: Oct 2, 2012
Posts: 215

View Profile
« Reply #38 on: Sep 15, 2017, 08:01AM »

So you wouldn't tear down a Hitler statue because it would cost too much?

A lot of people would do it for free. Seems like a false argument.


Hitler wasn’t in the Civil War. I’m pretty sure there’s no civil war monuments that feature him.
Logged
schlitzbeer
*
Offline Offline

Location: Bremerton, WA
Joined: Oct 2, 2012
Posts: 215

View Profile
« Reply #39 on: Sep 15, 2017, 08:10AM »

But we need to continue spending to keep monuments to making sure that the minorities understand "their place"?  That's what they are there for.  They bother a lot of people, always have.  They help to enforce those racist enclaves.  They should never have been there, and they have little historical or artistic value.

I'm all for actually spending the money to add a slave in chains to each one.  Then I might actually carry the right meaning.  How do you think that would go over?

Cheers,
Andy

I’m fine with adding slaves in chains. People can be bothered by them. And they do have a historical value. Do they depict and romanticize a terrible time in our history?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5  All   Go Up
Print
Jump to: