Confederate Streets and Monuments

[ComradeMilton]

Why have you and others insisted on making no changes to statuary or street names for fear of people not learning their history if either or both are altered?

[Rozalia]

Because we're not little !@#$es maybe? Some idiots tried to take down Cecil Rhodes statue here and got told to deal with it as it wasn't happening. The most famous person that came out of my area was a Puritan writer whose most notable book is unreadable for most adults let alone children. He had a lot of ideas on things that I very much despise (I hate Puritanism as a whole) and yet look, I'm not such a little !@#$ that I want the monument to him destroyed. Fancy that. 

This might be a foreign concept to someone as... "global" as you, but history, especially local history is of some importance especially outside the huge cities. You could go to any town and take issue with any and all famous people honoured with monuments. They were racists. They were sexists. They believed everyone had their proper place, so on. Products of their time. 

[ComradeMilton]

So, is the history gone without street names and statues? If we keep them the same do we need to teach history or record it in books? Will the books and teachings be available to attend or read, with or without different street names or statuary?

[Big Brother]

2 hours ago, Rozalia said:

Because we're not little !@#$es maybe? Some idiots tried to take down Cecil Rhodes statue here and got told to deal with it as it wasn't happening. The most famous person that came out of my area was a Puritan writer whose most notable book is unreadable for most adults let alone children. He had a lot of ideas on things that I very much despise (I hate Puritanism as a whole) and yet look, I'm not such a little !@#$ that I want the monument to him destroyed. Fancy that. 

This might be a foreign concept to someone as... "global" as you, but history, especially local history is of some importance especially outside the huge cities. You could go to any town and take issue with any and all famous people honoured with monuments. They were racists. They were sexists. They believed everyone had their proper place, so on. Products of their time. 

I think what you meant to say is "I'm such a little shit that I don't want the monument to him destroyed", as that would be the right application of such a term.

The argument that removing monuments somehow lessens historical awareness is above all stupid. It is illogical and false. The absolute most important thing when it comes to remembering history is school curricula, what is taught to children by their teachers, and what is taught to them by their friends and family. There are countless historical events that have occurred that have not required monuments for people to remember them. My own country had a civil war period that lasted more than 100 years. There are little to no monuments of events and people related to this time period partially because it took place almost a thousand years ago. Yet despite the lack of monuments and visible symbols people are still aware of it because learning about these events was part of their education and they were motivated to some degree to learn about their history. Monuments are completely meaningless without context and the required context is gained through education, not by looking at statues. The idea that people won't know about these parts of history if you remove monuments is thus rather silly when you recognize the fact that if someone were to see these monuments without having been taught anything about the civil war elsewhere, they would have absolutely no meaning to them. They would be nothing but pieces of rock and these pieces of rock and metal and whatever other materials used are not the defining factor in remembering history.

I very much understand what you mean when you say that these famous people are products of their time. One of my favorite authors, H.P. Lovecraft, was very much a product of his time. I love his writing and his stories but he was very much a xenophobe, a person who's political opinions are in complete contradiction to my own. I don't expect him to have modern sensibilities and I don't call people racist for owning or reading his books or hanging his painting in their private abodes should they choose to do so. However, public government monuments are an entirely different matter. They are representations and statements of the American government to the American people. It is completely unreasonable to expect the entire American people to be okay with their government propping up these monuments when the people depicted in said monuments were of the opinion that half of the American people are subhuman savages who's only rightful place in the world is at the end of a chain. If the government, local or otherwise, props up monuments of people with ignorant, racist views, then the government becomes a representative of those views. And if a government becomes representative of those views, it will cause conflict and should be opposed.

Regardless, the argument that the removal of monuments lessens historical awareness is obviously false. It should be dismissed, ignored and probably laughed at.

[Sailor Jerry]

So a few folks are all butt-hurt about some street signs and monuments.  Who cares!  To make things fair.....since history will just be taught in schools and by family and friends, lets remove all street signs and monuments that are named after anyone or anything or any idea.  No street should be named after a person.....no more "Martin Luther King Blvd" or "Rosa Parks Blvd" or "Sam Cooke Way" or "Muhammad Ali Blvd" or "Jackie Robinson Pkwy" because that could be offensive to some folks......just use numbers and letters for street signs......once you've run through the alphabet, just start doubling up, "AA Ave", "DYR St", or a combination of letters and numbers.  Unless you have a hatred of letters and number, then this should solve it. 

[ComradeMilton]

3 hours ago, Sailor Jerry said:

So a few folks are all butt-hurt about some street signs and monuments.  Who cares!  To make things fair.....since history will just be taught in schools and by family and friends, lets remove all street signs and monuments that are named after anyone or anything or any idea.  No street should be named after a person.....no more "Martin Luther King Blvd" or "Rosa Parks Blvd" or "Sam Coke Way" or "Muhammad Ali Blvd" or "Jackie Robinson Pkwy" because that could be offensive to some folks......just use numbers and letters for street signs......once you've run through the alphabet, just start doubling up, "AA Ave", "DYR St", or a combination of letters and numbers.  Unless you have a hatred of letters and number, then this should solve it. 

Okay. Though it would also mean changing the American base in South Korea named in honor of an American officer beaten to death by North Korean soldiers. I'm not even being sarcastic, please feel absolutely free to do this. We could just use people who have done major works of good for humanity and then still have statues and roads and stuff without them all displaying swastikas or KKK to indicate involvement. I've presented a number of people who have contributed to the absolute good of humanity as those should be the people honored this way. Rename Camp Boniface to Camp 141. It's random and might occupy the North's guards for a while.

[Rozalia]

6 hours ago, Big Brother said:

I think what you meant to say is "I'm such a little shit that I don't want the monument to him destroyed", as that would be the right application of such a term.

The argument that removing monuments somehow lessens historical awareness is above all stupid. It is illogical and false. The absolute most important thing when it comes to remembering history is school curricula, what is taught to children by their teachers, and what is taught to them by their friends and family. There are countless historical events that have occurred that have not required monuments for people to remember them. My own country had a civil war period that lasted more than 100 years. There are little to no monuments of events and people related to this time period partially because it took place almost a thousand years ago. Yet despite the lack of monuments and visible symbols people are still aware of it because learning about these events was part of their education and they were motivated to some degree to learn about their history. Monuments are completely meaningless without context and the required context is gained through education, not by looking at statues. The idea that people won't know about these parts of history if you remove monuments is thus rather silly when you recognize the fact that if someone were to see these monuments without having been taught anything about the civil war elsewhere, they would have absolutely no meaning to them. They would be nothing but pieces of rock and these pieces of rock and metal and whatever other materials used are not the defining factor in remembering history.

I very much understand what you mean when you say that these famous people are products of their time. One of my favorite authors, H.P. Lovecraft, was very much a product of his time. I love his writing and his stories but he was very much a xenophobe, a person who's political opinions are in complete contradiction to my own. I don't expect him to have modern sensibilities and I don't call people racist for owning or reading his books or hanging his painting in their private abodes should they choose to do so. However, public government monuments are an entirely different matter. They are representations and statements of the American government to the American people. It is completely unreasonable to expect the entire American people to be okay with their government propping up these monuments when the people depicted in said monuments were of the opinion that half of the American people are subhuman savages who's only rightful place in the world is at the end of a chain. If the government, local or otherwise, props up monuments of people with ignorant, racist views, then the government becomes a representative of those views. And if a government becomes representative of those views, it will cause conflict and should be opposed.

Regardless, the argument that the removal of monuments lessens historical awareness is obviously false. It should be dismissed, ignored and probably laughed at.

Excuse me? Me a "little shit" for not jumping around like an idiot and wanting a statue to a famous man destroyed? Please. 

For your main argument... except most of those statues were donated by people to the area. It wasn't the government. Also... black Americans are not half of the American pop.

As for the attempt to mock statues and other monuments... it is basically an argument to have no statues whatsoever. Knock the Statue of Liberty down too I guess. Silly stuff. When I was a boy I was taught exactly why these men were notable and great, why they were honoured with statues. Take the statues out and perhaps I wouldn't have been. The statues if you like it or not act as a point to inspire people to learn more about them. The writer I talked about from my town has a statue, a museum, a sports centre named after him, a pub named after him, a church named after him, a school named after him, and the local Inn is also named after his book. Now sure, you can say remove the statue and his name is still in enough places but... that would be you being dishonest. People who want those statues gone want to rub out the names from everywhere they may be. So if the statue was to be taken down then the names on those things I mentioned would also go. 

[Big Brother]

29 minutes ago, Rozalia said:

Excuse me? Me a "little shit" for not jumping around like an idiot and wanting a statue to a famous man destroyed? Please. 

For your main argument... except most of those statues were donated by people to the area. It wasn't the government. Also... black Americans are not half of the American pop.

As for the attempt to mock statues and other monuments... it is basically an argument to have no statues whatsoever. Knock the Statue of Liberty down too I guess. Silly stuff. When I was a boy I was taught exactly why these men were notable and great, why they were honoured with statues. Take the statues out and perhaps I wouldn't have been. The statues if you like it or not act as a point to inspire people to learn more about them. The writer I talked about from my town has a statue, a museum, a sports centre named after him, a pub named after him, a church named after him, a school named after him, and the local Inn is also named after his book. Now sure, you can say remove the statue and his name is still in enough places but... that would be you being dishonest. People who want those statues gone want to rub out the names from everywhere they may be. So if the statue was to be taken down then the names on those things I mentioned would also go. 

Yes, if this author of yours is a representative of views that are inherently discriminative against a certain part of the population his name should certainly be stricken from all public places. It's more important to ensure unity of people and eradication of oppressive ideas than it is to honor any single man.

As for the origins of the monuments, if they were donated by the people to the area that's fine but as soon as they were erected on public property they became public property and public property is in the vast majority of cases maintained and cultivated by the government. If a government chooses to maintain a monument of someone or something that perpetuates and validates racist, bigoted views then that government is essentially making a statement that those views and the people who held them are accepted, even revered. These monuments aren't even supposed to make people remember the civil war. Most of them were erected long after the war was over in order to supress the memory of the American civil war and the Confederate defeat. They were meant to cement the falsehood that the South is and always has been aligned with Confederate values.

There is no reason for any American in the south to be proud of the civil war. It was a rich man's war and a poor man's fight. The small and wealthy slave-owning elite used misogyny and racism to convince poor white southern subsistence farmers to fight for them and their wealth by duping them into thinking slavery gave even those who didn't own slaves a superior position in society because they did not belong to anyone like slaves or women did. They gave them a false sense of superiority, then duped them into dying so that the few rich could keep their slaves and thus their profits. The Americans who died fighting for the CSA during the civil war died to ensure the wealth of people who cared nothing for them. Basically, they died for nothing. I'm not sure I understand why anyone would want to maintain monuments dedicated to the deceptive people who fooled their ancestors into giving up their lives for no good reason whatsoever in a war that ended in defeat.

Regardless, none of what you have said changes the fact that most people's knowledge about historical events comes from education, not walking around town looking at monuments. I don't disagree that monuments can serve as additional resources in historical education but the statement that people will forget history if you remove the monuments is patently false.

[Sailor Jerry]

5 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

Okay. Though it would also mean changing the American base in South Korea named in honor of an American officer beaten to death by North Korean soldiers. I'm not even being sarcastic, please feel absolutely free to do this. We could just use people who have done major works of good for humanity and then still have statues and roads and stuff without them all displaying swastikas or KKK to indicate involvement. I've presented a number of people who have contributed to the absolute good of humanity as those should be the people honored this way. Rename Camp Boniface to Camp 141. It's random and might occupy the North's guards for a while.

I'm fine with that....just call it "U.S. Military Base (whatever town it's in)".  As to people who have done major works of the good of humanity.....nope.....no peoples names at all...period....end of story!

[ComradeMilton]

5 hours ago, Rozalia said:

Excuse me? Me a "little shit" for not jumping around like an idiot and wanting a statue to a famous man destroyed? Please. Your terrible argument is already handled so i'm just going to chuckle here that since you've received one petty insult in comparison to the number you give me and actually appear to be bothered by it is hilarious.

 

13 minutes ago, Sailor Jerry said:

I'm fine with that....just call it "U.S. Military Base (whatever town it's in)".  As to people who have done major works of the good of humanity.....nope.....no peoples names at all...period....end of story! Works for me.

 

[Rozalia]

On 05/09/2017 at 6:06 PM, Big Brother said:

Yes, if this author of yours is a representative of views that are inherently discriminative against a certain part of the population his name should certainly be stricken from all public places. It's more important to ensure unity of people and eradication of oppressive ideas than it is to honor any single man.

As for the origins of the monuments, if they were donated by the people to the area that's fine but as soon as they were erected on public property they became public property and public property is in the vast majority of cases maintained and cultivated by the government. If a government chooses to maintain a monument of someone or something that perpetuates and validates racist, bigoted views then that government is essentially making a statement that those views and the people who held them are accepted, even revered. These monuments aren't even supposed to make people remember the civil war. Most of them were erected long after the war was over in order to supress the memory of the American civil war and the Confederate defeat. They were meant to cement the falsehood that the South is and always has been aligned with Confederate values.

There is no reason for any American in the south to be proud of the civil war. It was a rich man's war and a poor man's fight. The small and wealthy slave-owning elite used misogyny and racism to convince poor white southern subsistence farmers to fight for them and their wealth by duping them into thinking slavery gave even those who didn't own slaves a superior position in society because they did not belong to anyone like slaves or women did. They gave them a false sense of superiority, then duped them into dying so that the few rich could keep their slaves and thus their profits. The Americans who died fighting for the CSA during the civil war died to ensure the wealth of people who cared nothing for them. Basically, they died for nothing. I'm not sure I understand why anyone would want to maintain monuments dedicated to the deceptive people who fooled their ancestors into giving up their lives for no good reason whatsoever in a war that ended in defeat.

Regardless, none of what you have said changes the fact that most people's knowledge about historical events comes from education, not walking around town looking at monuments. I don't disagree that monuments can serve as additional resources in historical education but the statement that people will forget history if you remove the monuments is patently false.

And there we are. As I said, it doesn't stop with statues and you admit as such. Lets just deem everyone from before year 2000 a non-person because they held not-modern views. Utterly ridiculous. Funny how cowards can attack the dead but shy away from grappling with those who are alive and hold views that would be considered absolutely abhorrent 300 years ago let alone today. 

You are really tripping yourself up. Not only were those monuments largely donated by people of the area but they are on private property also. 

??? You can say that about nearly virtually any war. You think the men of the Union didn't die for some rich guys to make a whole lot of money too? Don't give me guff about "dying to free slaves". Lincoln and the Union government were cynical in their effort to smash down a succeeding part of their country and nothing more. Also... misogyny? Really. You are just randomly going to pluck that out and talk as if it mattered one bit? Come on now. 

 

[ComradeMilton]

It doesn't need to expand. All street names are redone (easy) and all statues are removed and sold at auction or something and the public plots of land allotted can be turned into small parks or something for the public. Sounds reasonable and fantastic.

[Edwardidk]

1 hour ago, ComradeMilton said:

It doesn't need to expand. All street names are redone (easy) and all statues are removed and sold at auction or something and the public plots of land allotted can be turned into small parks or something for the public. Sounds reasonable and fantastic.

Is anything these days ever this easy?

 

There's politics, protests, counter-protests, violence, terrorism... the list goes on and on about the potential backlash this could bring.

 

Don't know if this has been mentioned already, but you're also suggesting that we allow the selling of monuments as we see it fit to do so. If we do this, why don't we sell all our historical statues, monuments, etc. at various auctions?

[ComradeMilton]

Some already do. Arizona sold one of its state governmental buildings.  I don't think adjustments in who is depicted or name needs to universally change or be removed, but if it needs to be that drastic an overreaction I was simply saying in my opinion it is better than the alternative.

[Rozalia]

Sure. Lets just rub out everyone from before year 2000 because they don't fit modern (whiny !@#$) sensibilities. 

All you crazies always want to destroy history for some reason. From the Communists to the Islamists, and now to the whiny race hustlers. Just absolutely pathetic. I'm a Republican (British) and you don't see me saying that once the Monarchy falls we should be destroying everything related to monarchs. What point is there in it exactly? Why should the dead be scorned when they have done so many good things?

Alfred the Great being from the 800s no doubt held many terrible views (also burned some cakes so the story goes). He also basically founded England and defeated the foreign invaders from across the sea.

Edward I killed loads of Muslims in the so called Holy Land, killed Simon de Montfort (ahead of his time in this democracy business) to restore the power of the crown, looted and kicked out the Jews (nothing strange for the time), and also campaigned against other forces in the British Isles. Was also what many consider the first truly English king for making English the court language and he helped shape what England would become in the future greatly.

Oliver Cromwell was a Puritan who fought in rebellion against the King, cut off his head, and then ruled a Commonwealth which he ruled as a absolute monarch in all but name. Also well known for killing a lot of Irish though some dispute him doing anything out of the norm in Ireland. He also put the fear in future Kings which made sure they weren't as abusive as previous ones, showed tolerance to the Jews and welcomed them back to the country, and established military competence which would remain going forward. 

People of the past were not perfect, no one is. They all had their bad points but they also had many great points. When most people admire these great people they are admiring them for the great things they did and not the bad. Heck lets use Islam because I know you crazies just love Islam. Shall we rub out mention of Muhammad for having sex with a child? For being a religious nutjob with loads of horrible views? Yeah, you crazies can talk tough on others but I can be sure that not one of you has the balls to use your same logic on him. Talk whatever excuses you might have, pathetic cowards the lot of you. 

[Caecus]

2 minutes ago, Rozalia said:

Sure. Lets just rub out everyone from before year 2000 because they don't fit modern (whiny !@#$) sensibilities. 

All you crazies always want to destroy history for some reason. From the Communists to the Islamists, and now to the whiny race hustlers. Just absolutely pathetic. I'm a Republican (British) and you don't see me saying that once the Monarchy falls we should be destroying everything related to monarchs. What point is there in it exactly? Why should the dead be scorned when they have done so many good things?

Alfred the Great being from the 800s no doubt held many terrible views (also burned some cakes so the story goes). He also basically founded England and defeated the foreign invaders from across the sea.

Edward I killed loads of Muslims in the so called Holy Land, killed Simon de Montfort (ahead of his time in this democracy business) to restore the power of the crown, looted and kicked out the Jews (nothing strange for the time), and also campaigned against other forces in the British Isles. Was also what many consider the first truly English king for making English the court language and he helped shape what England would become in the future greatly.

Oliver Cromwell was a Puritan who fought in rebellion against the King, cut off his head, and then ruled a Commonwealth which he ruled as a absolute monarch in all but name. Also well known for killing a lot of Irish though some dispute him doing anything out of the norm in Ireland. He also put the fear in future Kings which made sure they weren't as abusive as previous ones, showed tolerance to the Jews and welcomed them back to the country, and established military competence which would remain going forward. 

People of the past were not perfect, no one is. They all had their bad points but they also had many great points. When most people admire these great people they are admiring them for the great things they did and not the bad. Heck lets use Islam because I know you crazies just love Islam. Shall we rub out mention of Muhammad for having sex with a child? For being a religious nutjob with loads of horrible views? Yeah, you crazies can talk tough on others but I can be sure that not one of you has the balls to use your same logic on him. Talk whatever excuses you might have, pathetic cowards the lot of you. 

How is destroying statues destroying history? Are we also burning books and any primary source documents related to them? I seem to recall Hitler not having a statue, but plenty of people still remember him. 

There is a critical difference between actively damning someone's memory to oblivion by burning any and all traces of their existence and stopping the amoral and stupid glorification of people who don't represent the ideals of a moral republic and were frankly not very impressive. The fact that you can't tell the difference between the two suggests either that you have no understand of how history is preserved or you don't care and are putting up a rather shortsighted argument that collapses on itself with any real scrutiny. 

You'll also have to remind me what great things Robert E. Lee did. Last time I checked, the best thing he ever did was order the death of some half a million Americans in a futile war to preserve slavery. But what do I know, I seem to forget a fact about Lee every time a statue of his comes down. Cause, that's how history works. 

 

Again, and I can't stress this enough, American leadership is first and foremost moral, above martial. We're not Romans, we're not warlords. 'Murica. 

[ComradeMilton]

19 minutes ago, Rozalia said:

Sure. Lets just rub out everyone from before year 2000 because they don't fit modern (whiny !@#$) sensibilities.  Statues aren't people. You can't wipe them out, since, again, they're not actually people who stand completely still in shifts, but sculpted representations of people often utilizing metals or carvings from rock.

All you crazies always want to destroy history for some reason. Are you going back to asserting that without street name preservation and statues remaining static that history disappears again? I thought you gave that up and had moved on to some new complaint that doesn't exist?  From the Communists to the Islamists, and now to the whiny race hustlers. Just absolutely pathetic. I'm a Republican (British) and you don't see me saying that once the Monarchy falls we should be destroying everything related to monarchs. What point is there in it exactly? Why should the dead be scorned when they have done so many good things? Are they scorned if they don't have statues? I didn't say we needed to do that. I stated the extreme position posted would be fine with me in the unlikely event such a thing would need to happen.

Alfred the Great being from the 800s no doubt held many terrible views (also burned some cakes so the story goes). He also basically founded England and defeated the foreign invaders from across the sea. With such reliable, written text of the history of this person why would it need a statue to remember? Furthermore that lasted rhaps two centuries before you had William come over and adjust England.

Edward I killed loads of Muslims in the so called Holy Land (Does someone claim it's not the Holy Land?), killed Simon de Montfort (ahead of his time in this democracy business) to restore the power of the crown, looted and kicked out the Jews (nothing strange for the time), and also campaigned against other forces in the British Isles. Was also what many consider the first truly English king for making English the court language and he helped shape what England would become in the future greatly. Interesting and totally irrelevant.

Oliver Cromwell was a Puritan who fought in rebellion against the King, cut off his head, and then ruled a Commonwealth which he ruled as a absolute monarch in all but name. Also well known for killing a lot of Irish though some dispute him doing anything out of the norm in Ireland. He also put the fear in future Kings which made sure they weren't as abusive as previous ones, showed tolerance to the Jews and welcomed them back to the country, and established military competence which would remain going forward. Did you need to travel to a statue honoring Oliver Cromwell to be able to recall this and produce it here? Or did you learn it via reading history texts?

People of the past were not perfect, no one is. They all had their bad points but they also had many great points. When most people admire these great people they are admiring them for the great things they did and not the bad. (Do you have any independent, respected polling indicating this is the case?) Heck lets use Islam because I know you crazies just love Islam. Not fearing or discriminating agasinst members of religion on the basis of the actions of fewer than one percent of their populations is not quite the same as universal love, but a simple matter of not judging them collectively on the basis of fewer than one percent of the adherents. Shall we rub out mention of Muhammad for having sex with a child? I'm not sure if that's true (since it's not like the Quran is anymore reliable historically than the Christian bible, but assuming it is, and we're being respectful Islam would have us not depict Muhammed in any way), For being a religious nutjob with loads of horrible views? Yeah, you crazies can talk tough on others but I can be sure that not one of you has the balls to use your same logic on him. Talk whatever excuses you might have, pathetic cowards the lot of you.  Logic on whom? Muhammed? He lived in the 600s, how would we do the that, exactly, assuming we had a reason to want to do so?

 

[Rozalia]

Wow... did I just see Milton defend Muhammed by saying that the Quran is not an accurate account so there is no evidence he had sex with a child. Wow, talk about pathetic. 

I like how Islam reveals how cowardly you sorts are. Just completely craven. One mention of Islam and you cower and get on your knees. Weak. 

31 minutes ago, Caecus said:

How is destroying statues destroying history? Are we also burning books and any primary source documents related to them? I seem to recall Hitler not having a statue, but plenty of people still remember him. 

There is a critical difference between actively damning someone's memory to oblivion by burning any and all traces of their existence and stopping the amoral and stupid glorification of people who don't represent the ideals of a moral republic and were frankly not very impressive. The fact that you can't tell the difference between the two suggests either that you have no understand of how history is preserved or you don't care and are putting up a rather shortsighted argument that collapses on itself with any real scrutiny. 

You'll also have to remind me what great things Robert E. Lee did. Last time I checked, the best thing he ever did was order the death of some half a million Americans in a futile war to preserve slavery. But what do I know, I seem to forget a fact about Lee every time a statue of his comes down. Cause, that's how history works. 

 

Again, and I can't stress this enough, American leadership is first and foremost moral, above martial. We're not Romans, we're not warlords. 'Murica. 

I'm replying to someone who wants to rub them out in roads, museums, inns, whatever. Context please. You start with the statues, rub them out elsewhere, and then you don't teach about what they may have done. Just a caricatured version.

There is a different for glorifying people for the good things they did and glorying them for the bad. No one honours Edward I for kicking out Jews. They honour him for the good he did. 

Excuse me? How can you say I misunderstand America when you have said such a blatantly incorrect statement? Robert E. Lee was not in charge of the Confederacy. As far as I know he was also very limited in regards to the developed situation that lead to the succession and then inevitable war (like the Union really cared for slaves. They cared about losing all that land and treasure).

That so? Is that why I've so often heard Washington (the slave owner and racist) honoured in martial matters? You know, the first president of America.

Edited September 7, 2017 by Rozalia

[Buorhann]

>tfw people are still replying to Milton

[Caecus]

28 minutes ago, Rozalia said:

I'm replying to someone who wants to rub them out in roads, museums, inns, whatever. Context please. You start with the statues, rub them out elsewhere, and then you don't teach about what they may have done. Just a caricatured version.

There is a different for glorifying people for the good things they did and glorying them for the bad. No one honours Edward I for kicking out Jews. They honour him for the good he did. 

Excuse me? How can you say I misunderstand America when you have said such a blatantly incorrect statement? Robert E. Lee was not in charge of the Confederacy. As far as I know he was also very limited in regards to the developed situation that lead to the succession and then inevitable war (like the Union really cared for slaves. They cared about losing all that land and treasure).

That so? Is that why I've so often heard Washington (the slave owner and racist) honoured in martial matters? You know, the first president of America.

To be entirely fair, Hitler's name isn't on any roads, museums (except that he is the subject of it), inns, whatever, and we still remember him pretty clearly. 

I still don't see how Lee did any good. Unless you consider pointless bloodletting to preserve slavery to be any good. 

Washington was a shit general. Benedict Arnold was a better general than he was. My dog would have been a better general. Half of his staff officers would have been better generals. It's a god damn miracle that Washington lasted as long as he did before the French fleet pulled our asses out of the fire at Yorktown. The only reason why people think he was somehow a good general (he was not) is because he was the only person who kept the colonies together in opposition against England by being general of the continental army. 

[Edwardidk]

3 hours ago, Caecus said:

How is destroying statues destroying history?

Tell that to the families whose ancestors were these people. You're basically taking a priceless heirloom away from them.

3 hours ago, Caecus said:

There is a critical difference between actively damning someone's memory to oblivion by burning any and all traces of their existence and stopping the amoral and stupid glorification of people who don't represent the ideals of a moral republic and were frankly not very impressive. The fact that you can't tell the difference between the two suggests either that you have no understand of how history is preserved or you don't care and are putting up a rather shortsighted argument that collapses on itself with any real scrutiny. 

What is considered "moral" also changes with time. 50 years ago, giving your kid a beating for screwing up was commonplace. Now? Not unless you want your kid to get taken by child services.

If these statues are removed, why don't we remove Washington? He owned slaves, and he also caused thousands of deaths by leading the fighting. Who knows? Maybe in a hundred years he'll be immoral too. You can't judge the past using today's standards.

3 hours ago, Caecus said:

You'll also have to remind me what great things Robert E. Lee did. Last time I checked, the best thing he ever did was order the death of some half a million Americans in a futile war to preserve slavery. But what do I know, I seem to forget a fact about Lee every time a statue of his comes down. Cause, that's how history works.

Lee was never pro-slavery, even though he owned slaves. He was bunched together with the pro-slavery Confederates because

1. He never actually condemned slavery.
2. He fought for the South because most of his holdings/property were there.

Lee fought for his country, which is basically what Washington did. The only difference was that one won, while the other lost.

[Rozalia]

2 hours ago, Caecus said:

To be entirely fair, Hitler's name isn't on any roads, museums (except that he is the subject of it), inns, whatever, and we still remember him pretty clearly. 

I still don't see how Lee did any good. Unless you consider pointless bloodletting to preserve slavery to be any good. 

Washington was a shit general. Benedict Arnold was a better general than he was. My dog would have been a better general. Half of his staff officers would have been better generals. It's a god damn miracle that Washington lasted as long as he did before the French fleet pulled our asses out of the fire at Yorktown. The only reason why people think he was somehow a good general (he was not) is because he was the only person who kept the colonies together in opposition against England by being general of the continental army. 

How can we forget when pats on backs go out every year to commemorate his defeat? How many places ban his book? How many places use his name/ideology to intimidate and censor those they don't like? 

Considered a good commander who leading the significantly weaker Confederate forces managed to put up quite the fight. People love a good underdog. Why do you think Liu Bei whose career consisted of backstabbing anybody he worked for (Gongsun Zan, Lu Bu, Cao Cao, Yuan Shao, Liu Cong, Sun Quan, Liu Zhang. Tao Qian and Liu Biao are exceptions but you could say they died before he could betray them) is glorified as a hero of the highest order? He was a man who was born a peasant and in a journey where he had to face down many much more powerful warlords, including the Prime Minister who had the strongest force in the land, he rose to become Emperor. 

And yet I have seen many people glorify him as up there. Benedict Arnold is often forgotten in regards to his prowess because he is hated which... fits exactly what we're talking about here. When someone of the past is marked as a evil one we must not commend in any way then ignorance often takes hold. For another Three Kingdoms example, Cao Cao is considered to be some sort of devil by many when in reality he was incredibly intelligent, an excellent leader, the incident of him massacring towns was perfectly in line with Confucianism and others did worse for much less reason, he restored law and order that had been lost for a long time by defeating the bandits, rebels, barbarians, and other troublemakers, hired on merit rather than the mess that the empire had previously been in, was able to forgive enemies including a guy who got his firstborn killed, and actually treated his wives pretty decently (unlike say his son, who once bored of one of his wives made her kill herself). 

[Caecus]

3 hours ago, Edwardidk said:

Tell that to the families whose ancestors were these people. You're basically taking a priceless heirloom away from them.

What is considered "moral" also changes with time. 50 years ago, giving your kid a beating for screwing up was commonplace. Now? Not unless you want your kid to get taken by child services.

If these statues are removed, why don't we remove Washington? He owned slaves, and he also caused thousands of deaths by leading the fighting. Who knows? Maybe in a hundred years he'll be immoral too. You can't judge the past using today's standards.

Lee was never pro-slavery, even though he owned slaves. He was bunched together with the pro-slavery Confederates because

1. He never actually condemned slavery.
2. He fought for the South because most of his holdings/property were there.

Lee fought for his country, which is basically what Washington did. The only difference was that one won, while the other lost.

Really? The statues put up by the Jim Crow states are private property? Goodness me, I am very uninformed. Also, you have clearly not read the article about Lee's great grand-nephew and his recent removal from a church because he sided with the people to take down Lee's statue. 

Okay, then let's judge Lee by the standards of the past: He knowingly took up arms against the United States, despite being in the federal army and swearing an oath to uphold the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, making him an unpatriotic oath-breaker at best, an instigator of the most pointless bloodletting in American history (yes, that includes Vietnam) at worst. But yeah, if we were all flexible with our moral standards, I'm sure what the Japanese did at Nanking was moral in comparison to the holocaust, which is why Japan celebrates that part of its history with a statue of Japanese soldiers bayoneting Chinese civilians. 

As for Washington, I've already addressed this issue. Washington is defensible, because he actually contributed a lot to our country and despite all of his mortal faults led the country in the right direction. Is Lee defensible? Your only defense comes from trying to taking slavery off the table and even then, Lee is a piece of shit. Lee was just as bad as anyone in the South. He did what everyone else did: nothing. And unlike Washington, in times of crisis and internal strife, he did not bring people together, he actively chose a side and became the man who turned the crank on the meat grinder. His "country" was the United States, and in its darkest hour, he abandoned it. 

 

2 hours ago, Rozalia said:

How can we forget when pats on backs go out every year to commemorate his defeat? How many places ban his book? How many places use his name/ideology to intimidate and censor those they don't like? 

Considered a good commander who leading the significantly weaker Confederate forces managed to put up quite the fight. People love a good underdog. Why do you think Liu Bei whose career consisted of backstabbing anybody he worked for (Gongsun Zan, Lu Bu, Cao Cao, Yuan Shao, Liu Cong, Sun Quan, Liu Zhang. Tao Qian and Liu Biao are exceptions but you could say they died before he could betray them) is glorified as a hero of the highest order? He was a man who was born a peasant and in a journey where he had to face down many much more powerful warlords, including the Prime Minister who had the strongest force in the land, he rose to become Emperor. 

And yet I have seen many people glorify him as up there. Benedict Arnold is often forgotten in regards to his prowess because he is hated which... fits exactly what we're talking about here. When someone of the past is marked as a evil one we must not commend in any way then ignorance often takes hold. For another Three Kingdoms example, Cao Cao is considered to be some sort of devil by many when in reality he was incredibly intelligent, an excellent leader, the incident of him massacring towns was perfectly in line with Confucianism and others did worse for much less reason, he restored law and order that had been lost for a long time by defeating the bandits, rebels, barbarians, and other troublemakers, hired on merit rather than the mess that the empire had previously been in, was able to forgive enemies including a guy who got his firstborn killed, and actually treated his wives pretty decently (unlike say his son, who once bored of one of his wives made her kill herself). 

And yet we still don't forget him. I'm starting to think you don't really know how history is recorded and studied. You think that just because Hitler was directly and indirectly responsible for the death of 60 million people that we just don't have any records, first-hand accounts, and other primary sources about him? That during the hippy age, we all decided to collectively burn that shit? Your equivalency between the preservation of history and how statues play a role in that is wrong and silly. If your conjecture that statues play a role in the preservation of history were true, then that would assume that you had to travel all the way to some hickass town in Alabama to see a statue of Lee and therefore know anything about him. Seeing as how most of those statues don't have a plaque telling about his life story, I can only assume that's the reason why you don't know anything about him. 

Does this country look like the middle kingdom? People love a good underdog because they assume that the underdog is fighting to break chains, not make them. 

Well, those people obviously don't know American history well. I imagine most British people don't really know their American history. Maybe they should crack a book. And I assure you, Americans generally know who Benedict Arnold is, despite having only a boot as a statue.

Also, China is an amoral communist shithole, why is China at all relevant? And you aren't even talking about modern China, you're talking about a time when everyone shat in open fields and didn't have electricity. I don't see how your equivalency is relevant in the post-Cold War era of democratic states and multi-national deliberating bodies.Tell me, did you have to go to China and look at a statue of Cao Cao to know anything about him? 

[Rozalia]

1 minute ago, Caecus said:

And yet we still don't forget him. I'm starting to think you don't really know how history is recorded and studied. You think that just because Hitler was directly and indirectly responsible for the death of 60 million people that we just don't have any records, first-hand accounts, and other primary sources about him? That during the hippy age, we all decided to collectively burn that shit? Your equivalency between the preservation of history and how statues play a role in that is wrong and silly. If your conjecture that statues play a role in the preservation of history were true, then that would assume that you had to travel all the way to some hickass town in Alabama to see a statue of Lee and therefore know anything about him. Seeing as how most of those statues don't have a plaque telling about his life story, I can only assume that's the reason why you don't know anything about him. 

Does this country look like the middle kingdom? People love a good underdog because they assume that the underdog is fighting to break chains, not make them. 

Well, those people obviously don't know American history well. I imagine most British people don't really know their American history. Maybe they should crack a book. And I assure you, Americans generally know who Benedict Arnold is, despite having only a boot as a statue.

Also, China is an amoral communist shithole, why is China at all relevant? And you aren't even talking about modern China, you're talking about a time when everyone shat in open fields and didn't have electricity. I don't see how your equivalency is relevant in the post-Cold War era of democratic states and multi-national deliberating bodies.Tell me, did you have to go to China and look at a statue of Cao Cao to know anything about him? 

You seem to think I am saying that tearing down some statues magically wipes them from the history books. No. To begin with it goes beyond just statues as all sorts of things are named after people and as I said, how people are taught is affected by this reputation they can gain. Lets talk writers for example. You think these diseased schools they have over in your country are going to teach the works of a man who they deem is racist and most not be honoured in any way? No. They'll stop and perhaps teach some modern guff by some very special snowflake instead. Giving in to these people only means they will push harder and then more and more people become fair game. Already Lincoln and others are being attacked and it'll only grow. 

These are things inherent in all people. People admire those who as weak as they may be do well.

I didn't say Americans didn't know who the guy was, of course they do. I talked of his prowess. 

You love trying to make out that people are saying that we only know history form statues don't you? I'm simply going to ignore the nonsense you put up as it was a non response to what I said. The point of what I said is being deemed in this manner leads to ignorance. People build a caricatured view of the person with all the bad stuff, and don't know the good stuff they did.

[ComradeMilton]

12 hours ago, Rozalia said:

Wow... did I just see Milton defend Muhammed by saying that the Quran is not an accurate account so there is no evidence he had sex with a child. Wow, talk about pathetic. No, I offered no defense. I simply said that just like the bible a book of that age is likely to not be entirely accurate so it's unclear what, if anything, is incorrectly included dues to an error from the authors or not.

I like how Islam reveals how cowardly you sorts are. Just completely craven. One mention of Islam and you cower and get on your knees. Weak. Being respectful and not bigoted against someone of another religion is cowardly?

I'm replying to someone who wants to rub them out in roads, museums, inns, whatever. Context please. You start with the statues, rub them out elsewhere, and then you don't teach about what they may have done. Just a caricatured version. How do statues being removed alter the many, many existi?ng and future texts that contain the full history?

There is a different for glorifying people for the good things they did and glorying them for the bad. No one honours Edward I for kicking out Jews. They honour him for the good he did. There was a serial killer in Utah that requested an execution method that preserved his organs for post-execution donation. Should he get a statue for doing good or not receive one for the number of people he killed?

Excuse me? How can you say I misunderstand America when you have said such a blatantly incorrect statement? Robert E. Lee was not in charge of the Confederacy. Correct, Lee was one of the senior military officials in the Confederate military, allowing him to issue orders as Caecus said. As far as I know he was also very limited in regards to the developed situation that lead to the succession and then inevitable war (like the Union really cared for slaves. They cared about losing all that land and treasure). The primary issue was a continuation of the argument between those who wanted a weak federal government and strong state governments versus those who wantd a strong central government as a federal grouping of the states. The CSA tried to force this issue to avoid abolitionists succeeding in ending slavery in the United States as well as a lot more state power and tried to secede from the Union. Cession of a state from the Union was not permitted so when those favoring a reversal of the vivtory of strong federal, central government over states with reduced power, attempted to leave the Union to do so and began fighting their country it included slavery as an issue even without it being the primary disliked first American system of government before the Constitution was brought into effect in 1789 as the present governmental structure we use took initial and lasting effect.

That so? Is that why I've so often heard Washington (the slave owner and racist) honoured in martial matters? You know, the first president of America. He was not the first president of the United States:

President of Congress    Office Start    Office Exit
Samuel Huntington    March 1, 1781    July 9, 1781
Thomas McKean    July 10, 1781    November 4, 1781
John Hanson    November 5, 1781    November 3, 1782
Elias Boudinot    November 4, 1782    November 2, 1783
Thomas Mifflin    November 3, 1783    October 31, 1784
Richard Henry Lee    November 30, 1784    November 6, 1785
John Hancock    November 23, 1785    May 29, 1786
Nathaniel Gorham    June 6, 1786    November 5, 1786
Arthur St. Clair    February 2, 1787    November 4, 1787
Cyrus Griffin    January 22, 1788    November 2, 1788

As you can see Washington was our eleventh president.

"The term America's Critical Period refers to the period of United States history in the 1780s after the American Revolution and prior to the ratification of the United States Constitution. In 1781, the United States ratified the Articles of Confederation and prevailed in the Battle of Yorktown, the last major land battle between British and American forces in the American Revolutionary War. American independence was confirmed with the 1783 signing of the Treaty of Paris. The fledgling United States faced several challenges, many of which stemmed from the lack of a strong national government and unified political culture. The period ended in 1789 following the ratification of the United States Constitution, which established a new, more powerful, national government."

 

12 hours ago, Buorhann said:

>tfw people are still replying to Milton What's the harm in replying?

 

9 hours ago, Edwardidk said:

Tell that to the families whose ancestors were these people. You're basically taking a priceless heirloom away from them. On the contrary, we could give them the statue to display in any private property they elect to choose.

What is considered "moral" also changes with time. 50 years ago, giving your kid a beating for screwing up was commonplace. Now? Not unless you want your kid to get taken by child services.

If these statues are removed, why don't we remove Washington? He owned slaves, and he also caused thousands of deaths by leading the fighting. Who knows? Maybe in a hundred years he'll be immoral too. You can't judge the past using today's standards. I certainly can. If it's necessaryto remove a monument to Washington to avoid making decisions regarding who is depicted in statuary I support that.

Lee was never pro-slavery, even though he owned slaves. He was bunched together with the pro-slavery Confederates because

1. He never actually condemned slavery.
2. He fought for the South because most of his holdings/property were there.

Lee fought for his country, which is basically what Washington did. The only difference was that one won, while the other lost..

No, Lee fought against his country.