Jump to content
270soft Forum

Confederate Statue Removal


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

The "Monuments still standing versus those removed or relocated" graph is interesting - shows that removal of Confederate monuments got going about 5 years ago.

Yeah, BLM started about 5 years ago. A lot of the monuments I remember seeing in Dallas, Austin, San Marcos, New Orleans have been taken down. Glad to know they're at the forefront of taking down monuments to traitors. I don't think there are any statues to Benedict Arnold or to British Loyalists or to Hartford Convention or Essex Junto members. Overall, I'd say I'm only partially passionate about removing statues (maybe it's because I'm white and don't have the same level of outrage because its less close to home).  I'll say it bothers me more that people angrily defend the statues than it does that people want to angrily remove the statues. I'm less interested in seeing Washington, Jefferson, etc. removed; however, I don't have any negative reaction to them being removed, nor do I have a positive reaction towards their removal. Thus, I'm okay whichever way it goes in regards to expanding the criteria for statue removal. If they're worthy of statues, the statues will return, as I think will be the case with Washington and Jefferson. An example of a statue removal attempt that bothers me is the attempt to remove a Walt Whitman statue. His poetry has rare instances of referring to blacks by degrading names; however, his poetry also occasionally portrays blacks positively and he was anti-slavery. Similarly, I get bothered by attempts to remove Lincoln statues. He would fall in this Whitman area where they were anti-slavery, were not traitors, but clearly had a lesser opinion of blacks. However, if the communities are overwhelmingly African-American, I can understand the removal, as much I think the statue should stay there. My criteria for removal are: 1) Were they traitor that took up arms against the United States? 2) Did they advocate racial violence or genocide? 3) Were they a Wealthy White Caucasian Male that primarily attempt to serve themself and their social class and mostly neglect those out of their demographic? 4) Does a convincing majority of the local community want the statue removed, even if their reason might be, short-sighted, weak or superficial? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Yeah, BLM started about 5 years ago. A lot of the monuments I remember seeing in Dallas, Austin, San Marcos, New Orleans have been taken down. Glad to know they're at the forefront of taking down monuments to traitors. I don't think there are any statues to Benedict Arnold or to British Loyalists or to Hartford Convention or Essex Junto members. Overall, I'd say I'm only partially passionate about removing statues (maybe it's because I'm white and don't have the same level of outrage because its less close to home).  I'll say it bothers me more that people angrily defend the statues than it does that people want to angrily remove the statues. I'm less interested in seeing Washington, Jefferson, etc. removed; however, I don't have any negative reaction to them being removed, nor do I have a positive reaction towards their removal. Thus, I'm okay whichever way it goes in regards to expanding the criteria for statue removal. If they're worthy of statues, the statues will return, as I think will be the case with Washington and Jefferson. An example of a statue removal attempt that bothers me is the attempt to remove a Walt Whitman statue. His poetry has rare instances of referring to blacks by degrading names; however, his poetry also occasionally portrays blacks positively and he was anti-slavery. Similarly, I get bothered by attempts to remove Lincoln statues. He would fall in this Whitman area where they were anti-slavery, were not traitors, but clearly had a lesser opinion of blacks. However, if the communities are overwhelmingly African-American, I can understand the removal, as much I think the statue should stay there. My criteria for removal are: 1) Were they traitor that took up arms against the United States? 2) Did they advocate racial violence or genocide? 3) Were they a Wealthy White Caucasian Male that primarily attempt to serve themself and their social class and mostly neglect those out of their demographic? 4) Does a convincing majority of the local community want the statue removed, even if their reason might be, short-sighted, weak or superficial? 

There's a Benedict Arnold statue in New Brunswick, but he's not considered a traitor in Canada, and the statue is near the plot of land given to him by the United Empire Loyalists grants in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, PEI, Lower Canada (now Quebec), and Upper Canada (now Ontario). ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Does a convincing majority of the local community want the statue removed

My view is, if the local community doesn't want a statue, it should be moved. So to me this is a broader debate about the meaning of historical figures.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Patine said:

There's a Benedict Arnold statue in New Brunswick, but he's not considered a traitor in Canada, and the statue is near the plot of land given to him by the United Empire Loyalists grants in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, PEI, Lower Canada (now Quebec), and Upper Canada (now Ontario). ;)

Ya, Benedict Arnold just saw the light and joined the right side. 😉

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

My view is, if the local community doesn't want a statue, it should be moved. So to me this is a broader debate about the meaning of historical figures.

This is my view as well. Though, I don;t think local history can be completely ignored even if the majority might be against something.

Where I live, we have a confederate statue in front of the courthouse, but the vast majority is against moving it. So, I wouldn't support an attempt to move it.

Granted, I didn't even know it was a confederate statue until one of my college courses brought it up because the statue was first a union soldier. But it didn't get sold, so a confederate sons group purchased it, modified it, and sort of turned it into a confederate statue.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

This is my view as well. Though, I don;t think local history can be completely ignored even if the majority might be against something.

Where I live, we have a confederate statue in front of the courthouse, but the vast majority is against moving it. So, I wouldn't support an attempt to move it.

Granted, I didn't even know it was a confederate statue until one of my college courses brought it up because the statue was first a union soldier. But it didn't get sold, so a confederate sons group purchased it, modified it, and sort of turned it into a confederate statue.

 

58 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

My view is, if the local community doesn't want a statue, it should be moved. So to me this is a broader debate about the meaning of historical figures.

 

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

Yeah, BLM started about 5 years ago. A lot of the monuments I remember seeing in Dallas, Austin, San Marcos, New Orleans have been taken down. Glad to know they're at the forefront of taking down monuments to traitors. I don't think there are any statues to Benedict Arnold or to British Loyalists or to Hartford Convention or Essex Junto members. Overall, I'd say I'm only partially passionate about removing statues (maybe it's because I'm white and don't have the same level of outrage because its less close to home).  I'll say it bothers me more that people angrily defend the statues than it does that people want to angrily remove the statues. I'm less interested in seeing Washington, Jefferson, etc. removed; however, I don't have any negative reaction to them being removed, nor do I have a positive reaction towards their removal. Thus, I'm okay whichever way it goes in regards to expanding the criteria for statue removal. If they're worthy of statues, the statues will return, as I think will be the case with Washington and Jefferson. An example of a statue removal attempt that bothers me is the attempt to remove a Walt Whitman statue. His poetry has rare instances of referring to blacks by degrading names; however, his poetry also occasionally portrays blacks positively and he was anti-slavery. Similarly, I get bothered by attempts to remove Lincoln statues. He would fall in this Whitman area where they were anti-slavery, were not traitors, but clearly had a lesser opinion of blacks. However, if the communities are overwhelmingly African-American, I can understand the removal, as much I think the statue should stay there. My criteria for removal are: 1) Were they traitor that took up arms against the United States? 2) Did they advocate racial violence or genocide? 3) Were they a Wealthy White Caucasian Male that primarily attempt to serve themself and their social class and mostly neglect those out of their demographic? 4) Does a convincing majority of the local community want the statue removed, even if their reason might be, short-sighted, weak or superficial? 

In the main central square of Edmonton, we have a statue of Sir Winston Churchill, right across the street (well, a pedestrian walkway, not a street, proper) from the world's first memorial to the Holodomor. Although it wasn't an issue for the vast majority of the city's history, and it's currently still a "fringe movement," among University students, hipster youth, and certain parts of certain minority immigrant and First Nations communities (like I said, small - so far), a small-scale demand to remove Churchill's statue because he was a "Colonial Imperialist," and having him across the street from a Holodomor memorial when "he caused mass starvation in India, Ireland, and South Africa," is "completely inappropriate."

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

There's a Benedict Arnold statue in New Brunswick, but he's not considered a traitor in Canada, and the statue is near the plot of land given to him by the United Empire Loyalists grants in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, PEI, Lower Canada (now Quebec), and Upper Canada (now Ontario). ;)

Hey now!  What's wrong with being a british loyalist against those damned rebels and getting yourself a nice piece of land in Canada for your unwavering service?  (That's what my ancestors did, haha).

1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

Ya, Benedict Arnold just saw the light and joined the right side. 😉

Did you guys ever see "Turn: Washington's Spies"?  It's aired a few years ago, I just recently binged it on Netlix.  About Washington's "Culper" spy ring of childhood friends during the Revolutionary War.  It's a really fun show -- not 100% factual, of course, but generally based on real events and people.  It also shows how the details of at least one theory on how/why Benedict turned.  I really enjoyed it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

These statues have never been part of the Confederacy, but they became a part of the US. The Civil War got me into everything American, so I view these monuments as worthy for being studied and remembered. I would not support removing them, especially in a violent manner as exhibited during the last weeks. Violence deprives any legitimacy from an honest desire to get rid of the statues. History is already ignored too much nowadays, so I view the process of erasing it as a very dangerous dynamic going on. Same goes for the Confederate flag which is not racist, just because some racist douchebags have hijacked it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

These statues have never been part of the Confederacy, but they became a part of the US. The Civil War got me into everything American, so I view these monuments as worthy for being studied and remembered. I would not support removing them, especially in a violent manner as exhibited during the last weeks. Violence deprives any legitimacy from an honest desire to get rid of the statues. History is already ignored too much nowadays, so I view the process of erasing it as a very dangerous dynamic going on. Same goes for the Confederate flag which is not racist, just because some racist douchebags have hijacked it.

Well, to be fair, the Confederate flag was only ever officially adopted by an unrecognized nation (in terms of legal recognition by other sovereign nations of it's day and age - no other such nation formally recognized it, putting it in a similar boat to Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh, and even ISIS, in international law - it's recognition was only ever historiographical afterwards) that seceded from, and fought a war against, the nation it had part of to preserve a perceived "right," to carry an economic institution based completely on racist principals of the worst sort - the Trans-Atlantic-Based New World Plantation Slave Industry with Black African Chattel Slaves. That was THE reason for secession - Alexander Stevenson's "Cornerstone Speech," said it all, including referring to Black people as "of lesser development and evolution requiring the tutelage and uplifting of White superior men through hard labour." Other supposed reasons and justification only started emerging in the several decades after the Confederate defeat in what became known as the "Lost Cause," mentality. The Confederate flag, in any of it's four official formats, has never been an official flag for any other political entity as itself, since, though it has been made a part of some Southern State flags as well as flags, banners, or logos of various militias, organizations, pressure groups, NGO's, and secret societies, all pretty much thoroughly racist, or with a strong history of such.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Actinguy said:

Did you guys ever see "Turn: Washington's Spies"?  It's aired a few years ago, I just recently binged it on Netlix.  About Washington's "Culper" spy ring of childhood friends during the Revolutionary War.  It's a really fun show -- not 100% factual, of course, but generally based on real events and people.  It also shows how the details of at least one theory on how/why Benedict turned.  I really enjoyed it.

Never heard of it, but sounds like an interesting topic to look into.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

These statues have never been part of the Confederacy, but they became a part of the US. The Civil War got me into everything American, so I view these monuments as worthy for being studied and remembered. I would not support removing them, especially in a violent manner as exhibited during the last weeks. Violence deprives any legitimacy from an honest desire to get rid of the statues. History is already ignored too much nowadays, so I view the process of erasing it as a very dangerous dynamic going on. Same goes for the Confederate flag which is not racist, just because some racist douchebags have hijacked it.

Statues are not people or animals or even plants.  It is difficult to be violent to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Same goes for the Confederate flag which is not racist, just because some racist douchebags have hijacked it.

Much of what you said in your total comment has some reason to it, but this is your most flawed line. The Confederacy was an institution that fought to defend the right to enslaving human beings, among other things. A flag is a symbol for the ideas and ideals of a nation. As such the flag represents racism, especially among African-Americans that are descended from slaves. Moreover, I'd wager the majority of Whites would agree in this. 

I'm from the South. I had an ancestor that fought in the South. I even used to find the South much more interesting than the North when I first started reading about the Civil War in 1st or 2nd grade. I was very briefly a Civil War reenactor for the 9th TX Infantry, although we also fought as the Union. I went to a 99% white high school with kids wearing confederate flags on their shirt. One grows up to realize that the Confederate flag---any of its version--are just not right to put on public display. It's like the display version of telling lynching jokes to a mixed audience. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Much of what you said in your total comment has some reason to it, but this is your most flawed line. The Confederacy was an institution that fought to defend the right to enslaving human beings, among other things. A flag is a symbol for the ideas and ideals of a nation. As such the flag represents racism, especially among African-Americans that are descended from slaves. Moreover, I'd wager the majority of Whites would agree in this. 

I'm from the South. I had an ancestor that fought in the South. I even used to find the South much more interesting than the North when I first started reading about the Civil War in 1st or 2nd grade. I was very briefly a Civil War reenactor for the 9th TX Infantry, although we also fought as the Union. I went to a 99% white high school with kids wearing confederate flags on their shirt. One grows up to realize that the Confederate flag---any of its version--are just not right to put on public display. It's like the display version of telling lynching jokes to a mixed audience. 

 

1 hour ago, Patine said:

Well, to be fair, the Confederate flag was only ever officially adopted by an unrecognized nation (in terms of legal recognition by other sovereign nations of it's day and age - no other such nation formally recognized it, putting it in a similar boat to Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh, and even ISIS, in international law - it's recognition was only ever historiographical afterwards) that seceded from, and fought a war against, the nation it had part of to preserve a perceived "right," to carry an economic institution based completely on racist principals of the worst sort - the Trans-Atlantic-Based New World Plantation Slave Industry with Black African Chattel Slaves. That was THE reason for secession - Alexander Stevenson's "Cornerstone Speech," said it all, including referring to Black people as "of lesser development and evolution requiring the tutelage and uplifting of White superior men through hard labour." Other supposed reasons and justification only started emerging in the several decades after the Confederate defeat in what became known as the "Lost Cause," mentality. The Confederate flag, in any of it's four official formats, has never been an official flag for any other political entity as itself, since, though it has been made a part of some Southern State flags as well as flags, banners, or logos of various militias, organizations, pressure groups, NGO's, and secret societies, all pretty much thoroughly racist, or with a strong history of such.

@Conservative Elector 2 also, on top of the previous posts by @vcczar and myself I have just linked, the Confederate flag is seen, and grouped, not just in the U.S., but more or less internationally, along with the flag of the Third Reich, the UDI Republic of Rhodesia, and the South African flag as it appeared between 1948-1994, as flags of past regimes strongly remembered, not just for having institutional racism, but for, in many, many ways, coming into existence in the political forms that used those flags, BECAUSE of racism.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Patine said:

There's a Benedict Arnold statue in New Brunswick, but he's not considered a traitor in Canada, and the statue is near the plot of land given to him by the United Empire Loyalists grants in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, PEI, Lower Canada (now Quebec), and Upper Canada (now Ontario). ;)

Quite a few Loyalist statues/headbusts/remembrance monuments scattered throughout certain parts of the Caribbean as well; depends on where you are really.  "Victors write the history books" is a suitable proverb for why there seem to be none in the States.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, vcczar said:

Much of what you said in your total comment has some reason to it, but this is your most flawed line.

Thanks, I appreciate you saying that as I know we might largely disagree on the issue itself. Regarding the flag I have to elaborate a bit. Personally I like the first two flags of the Confederacy, which are similar to the current flag of Georgia and were used until 1863, way more than the "battle flag". By saying this I talk solely from an artistic perspective. The stainless banner resembles a flag of truce.

Years ago I bought both a US flag and a Confederate battle flag, because as I said the Civil War got me into all the US stuff. Therefore this also very personal to me although I have no other known connection to the Civil War. I personally did not view the flag as racist. I do appreciate reading about the Civil War era on hand but I am not a racist myself. So I believe it is possible to differentiate these things. I think many people who served in the CS Army might not have been bad people. They defended their home states and most people might have been not educated about the broader issues. Many generals are also viewed positively in the South, because they fought in the Mexican-American War bravely.

Saying that slavery existed under the Confederate flag is true, but if one argues this, we would also have to acknowledge that slavery existed under the first US flags for nearly 100 years. The Union Jack is also not out of favor, although it was used in the Empire, which ruled large parts of Africa and Asia in a colonial manner too. Belgium and France ruled in a colonial style under their modern day flags or at least very similar versions of it. Attacking the Confederate flag does not make much sense to me, regarding the fact that other nations did also commit awful things under their flags. It seems hypocritical to me, but I would not endorse changing any other flag as well, because as said I do believe one can differentiate between the colonial era and the flag itself.

Furthermore, in this great article you shared - this kind of information at one site is tremendous - they say the following "They also rejected any school textbook that said slavery was the central cause of the Civil War". I do not know why this is supposed to be wrong or even a racist assumption. Years ago people used to make fun of those people who said the Civil War was solely fought on the slave issue - an episode of the Simpsons even covers this aspect briefly. I was told Lincoln went to war because he wanted to preserve the Union, not free the slaves (at least until the third year of the war). Additionally, his Emancipation Proclamation did not free slaves in the rebellious states. I'd argue slavery was not THE, but one central cause of the Civil War. That's not racist, it's just not true otherwise.

11 hours ago, vcczar said:

I even used to find the South much more interesting than the North when I first started reading about the Civil War in 1st or 2nd grade.

I do as well to be honest and I fear we'll reach a time you won't be able to say this without being labeled a racist. People need to learn to differentiate things. I also like the Confederate uniforms more, but that does not mean I'd defend slavery as righteous. 

11 hours ago, vcczar said:

I was very briefly a Civil War reenactor for the 9th TX Infantry, although we also fought as the Union. 

Awesome!!!

11 hours ago, vcczar said:

I went to a 99% white high school with kids wearing confederate flags on their shirt. One grows up to realize that the Confederate flag---any of its version--are just not right to put on public display. It's like the display version of telling lynching jokes to a mixed audience. 

While I don't think lynching jokes are funny, I had had no objection to wear the Confederate flag on a shirt when I read about the Civil War first. I believed it shows my interest for history and many people here would have not known the flag anyway - I also read many believe it's just a sign to gain the image of a rebel. I would not wear one today, because it's not worth doing so anymore. I have no interest in being called a racist just because I love history. On a certain level this is sad, but it can't be helped.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Patine said:

 

@Conservative Elector 2 also, on top of the previous posts by @vcczar and myself I have just linked, the Confederate flag is seen, and grouped, not just in the U.S., but more or less internationally, along with the flag of the Third Reich, the UDI Republic of Rhodesia, and the South African flag as it appeared between 1948-1994, as flags of past regimes strongly remembered, not just for having institutional racism, but for, in many, many ways, coming into existence in the political forms that used those flags, BECAUSE of racism.

It's true but it does not necessarily mean I agree with grouping the Confederate flag with the Nazi flag. These are completely different eras. By talking about the Rhodesian flag you mean this one, right? I had to look it up.1000px-Flag_of_Rhodesia_(1968%E2%80%931979).svg.png

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

It's true but it does not necessarily mean I agree with grouping the Confederate flag with the Nazi flag. These are completely different eras. By talking about the Rhodesian flag you mean this one, right? I had to look it up.1000px-Flag_of_Rhodesia_(1968%E2%80%931979).svg.png

 

Yes, that's the UDI Rhodesian flag. And ultimately, you can disagree with that grouping of flags all you want - it doesn't mean that grouping isn't viewed as such, in the light of racist origins for all of the regimes in question, and the fact that many others do group them that way - both those decrying the racism foundations that all four had in common, and as rallying banners for White Supremacists. You can disagree there all you want, but both of the crowds I just mentioned, on opposite on ends of the argument, are VERY tough crowds to sway on the matter. And I can't help but notice, in a lot of arguments you've made on the issue throughout the time you've been here, that you seem to almost view the Confederate "cause," and reasons for rebelling and seceding, and the whole movement behind them, as somehow "justified," and "a good fight." That's the vibe I often get from many of your posts on the issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Patine said:

And I can't help but notice, in a lot of arguments you've made on the issue throughout the time you've been here, that you seem to almost view the Confederate "cause," and reasons for rebelling and seceding, and the whole movement behind them, as somehow "justified," and "a good fight." That's the vibe I often get from many of your posts on the issue.

I would disagree with the wording of "justified" and "a good fight". I certainly would not have argued for secession in the first place. However, the problem which I am concerned about most arises afterwards. If your state secedes, even against your will, what options do you have left? Going to the North with all your family is nearly impossible without money and connections. If you do not enlist in the CS army you might get shot anyway, so some might argue you and your family are most safe if you try to survive the war fighting. I don't make the point here for the CS general but for the ordinary farm boy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Patine said:

Yes, that's the UDI Rhodesian flag.

Ok, I hadn't this one on my mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Slavery was the central cause of secession.  The Confederates would have been perfectly content to secede and not fight the war, but Lincoln and company decided to fight to keep the union together.  Whether that makes slavery the central cause of the war is open to debate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...