Should confederate monuments be destroyed?

[Lexicus]

The Sioux are a poor tribe with lots of poor members. A billion dollars would go very far to improving life at places like Pine Ridge. I think that the leadership will change at some point and they will take the money.

I dunno though, I'm not entirely convinced the money would be distributed any more equitably than the revenue generated from the returned land. Is there any reason to think it would?

 

[Hrothbern]

The Confederate general Robert E. Lee himself opposed building Confederate monuments in the immediate aftermath of the war.
“I think it wiser,” he said, “not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavoured to obliterate the marks of civil strife and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered.”

 

[civvver]

I still think carving a bunch of white dudes' faces on that mountain was not a cool move.

What does white have to do with it? If they were faces of malcolm x and mlk and ghandi would it be ok?

I think the south's obsession with confederate symbols is weird. It's too ingrained in many people's identity. But you need to look at the history. Once they lost the north exploited them. Carpet baggers and such. The union troops occupied the south for a while to keep the peace. Maybe it was necessary to keep the south from abusing former slaves, but it seems to have had a very negative effect. It's basically why Hayes became president, cus of the agreement struck to remove troops from the south, so the south would accept him as president. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1877

Jesse James is another figure from the south who turned to robbing trains and such cus he couldn't get any work and hated northerners. There was a ton of animosity from the south towards the north and I don't think the north did such a great job rebuilding at the time.

So I'm not excusing the south but it's more of an american problem than just a southern states issue.

Also if we start tearing down all those monuments where do we stop? Do we get rid of custer and little bighorn memorial? He killed a ton of Indians. Or what about buffalo soldiers who helped exterminate the plains tribes like commanche? Are there monuments to them that need tearing down?

 

[Lexicus]

What does white have to do with it? If they were faces of malcolm x and mlk and ghandi would it be ok?

No

Also if we start tearing down all those monuments where do we stop? Do we get rid of custer and little bighorn memorial? He killed a ton of Indians. Or what about buffalo soldiers who helped exterminate the plains tribes like commanche? Are there monuments to them that need tearing down?

If such monuments exist I'm not to keen on them continuing to exist.

 

[Kyriakos]

The Sioux are a poor tribe with lots of poor members. A billion dollars would go very far to improving life at places like Pine Ridge. I think that the leadership will change at some point and they will take the money.

1 point something billion dollars would do nothing for (how many Sioux are there?)?* It really is of no importance, even if they were were a couple of thousands; one would be really dumb (let alone traitorous to memory) if they'd accept not just a bribe but one with no prospect of bettering conditions at all. Yes, 1 billion dollars would be awesome to give to... 4 people, or 10, or even 20. It is an utter joke to give as compensation for stealing their lands, to thousands.
Good for the Sioux for denying the bribe.

*Apparently, going by Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sioux) the Sioux population is around 160K people. So that 1.2 billion would mean each Sioux gets 7500 dollars. That is somewhat ludicrous to get for your stolen country, no?

 

[civvver]

No



If such monuments exist I'm not to keen on them continuing to exist.

Oh it exists.

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

The memorial itself doesn't scream inherently racist to me, but what it's about is the us government's extermination of tribes of people. I went there as a kid so I don't know what it's about, if it talks about the issues with that or glazes over them glorifying custer or what.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

What does white have to do with it? If they were faces of malcolm x and mlk and ghandi would it be ok?

I think the south's obsession with confederate symbols is weird. It's too ingrained in many people's identity. But you need to look at the history. Once they lost the north exploited them. Carpet baggers and such. The union troops occupied the south for a while to keep the peace. Maybe it was necessary to keep the south from abusing former slaves, but it seems to have had a very negative effect. It's basically why Hayes became president, cus of the agreement struck to remove troops from the south, so the south would accept him as president. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1877

Jesse James is another figure from the south who turned to robbing trains and such cus he couldn't get any work and hated northerners. There was a ton of animosity from the south towards the north and I don't think the north did such a great job rebuilding at the time.

So I'm not excusing the south but it's more of an american problem than just a southern states issue.

Also if we start tearing down all those monuments where do we stop? Do we get rid of custer and little bighorn memorial? He killed a ton of Indians. Or what about buffalo soldiers who helped exterminate the plains tribes like commanche? Are there monuments to them that need tearing down?

I bolded the part that pretty clearly shows you don't have a good grasp of what actually happened.

It wasn't a theoretical threat to former slaves - the defeated southerners actually turned on their former property with a vengeance. Grant had to send in troops to stop the violence. That kept a lid on things until the political parties agreed to end reconstruction (which was actually making inroads to providing equality to African Americans), at which point the violence and repression resumed. The post civil war era was absolutely terrible for African Americans who couldn't or wouldn't leave the South. It saw the rise of the original KKK and the beginning of a long history of lynchings and racial violence. Of course, the violence was there before the war but was supposed to have ended with it. It didn't and instead people of the south began inventing new 'legal' ways to oppress their former slaves.

The raising of monuments began as the new KKK (formerly wiped out by Grant) rose in the early 1900's-1930's in response to calls for legal equality for African Americans. It was a direct response to the nascent civil rights movement. The confederate monuments were more a statement of power and a warning to African Americans than they were about commemorating history. Look at basically every speech given at every monument dedication - they were filled with tales of violence against African Americans, past and present. They didn't just go out and say "we honor our ancestors", they made a deliberate point to talk about how they used to beat, rape and murder blacks and that it was a good thing to continue to do so.

And the 'history' they were commemorating was a white-washed, pro-confederate 'lost cause' retelling of what happened. The people who erected these monuments were successful in so much as they were both able to crush the civil rights movement for another generation and they were able to convince people like you that they really weren't that bad and that the civil war wasn't really about slavery but state's rights and it was a glorious lost cause for southern identity.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Also, I've been to little big horn and while the spots where soldiers were killed are marked with small stones, the museum is pretty explicit in telling the crimes and violence that the soldiers wrought on the Native Americans. It's not a monument to glorious fallen soldiers as much a historical and educational facility that does its best to set the record straight. No one goes to little big horn with giant US flags and assault rifles to express their solidarity with 'fallen heroes' the way racists show up at Confederate monuments (with the stars and bars instead of the US flag). Little Big Horn isn't that kind of white washed monument, thank god.

 

[Kyriakos]

Also, I've been to little big horn and while the spots where soldiers were killed are marked with small stones, the museum is pretty explicit in telling the crimes and violence that the soldiers wrought on the Native Americans. It's not a monument to glorious fallen soldiers as much a historical and educational facility that does its best to set the record straight. No one goes to little big horn with giant US flags and assault rifles to express their solidarity with 'fallen heroes' the way racists show up at Confederate monuments (with the stars and bars instead of the US flag). Little Big Horn isn't that kind of white washed monument, thank god.

I am not seeing how this makes genociding the native americans any better than the South genociding/using black people as slaves.
And while the civil war was about slavery, of course, that isn't an official reason to go to war (where else have you seen it? In Braavos vs some free city in Essos? ). The issue is about state right to secede, though, cause they did, and were declared war upon when they did so. The South obviously was a rotten country, but that doesn't change the fact it didn't declare war and therefore didn't start the war. And the united North/South soon went on to kill the native americans without much care of human rights, which does make the slavery issue look more like a pretext. (all of that by and large; can't account for how individuals saw it, but that also works both ways).

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I am not seeing how this makes genociding the native americans any better than the South genociding/using black people as slaves.
And while the civil war was about slavery, of course, that isn't an official reason to go to war (where else have you seen it? In Braavos vs some free city in Essos? ). The issue is about state right to secede, though, cause they did, and were declared war upon when they did so. The South obviously was a rotten country, but that doesn't change the fact it didn't declare war and therefore didn't start the war. And the united North/South soon went on to kill the native americans without much care of human rights, which does make the slavery issue look more like a pretext. (all of that by and large; can't account for how individuals saw it, but that also works both ways).

Literally wut?

I'm not saying any genocide is better than the other. I'm really confused. I'm simply saying that little big horn is explicitly not like confederate monuments. It's a battlefield with a museum attached. There may be a statue, it's been a long time since I've been there. But the character of the area is totally different as best I can recall. I did not come away thinking 'if only Custer hadn't made so many mistakes he could've won'. That's what you're meant to take away from Confederate monuments. Plus be intimidated if you are African American.

OH and:
The South declared war on the US, not the other way around. They literally started the war. They bombarded Ft. Sumner in South Carolina as the first act of war, then undertook an invasion of the North which was ultimately repulsed. The first couple of years the Union had to mount a desperate defense of their own territory as the South pillaged their way North, enslaving every free black person they could get their hands on.

Bolded because I feel it necessary to correct a really dumb thing you said in the loudest possible way.


Also:

NO ONE IS EXCUSING THE GENOCIDE OF NATIVE AMERICANS. I do not know why you are trying to draw the equivalence. Jesus H Christ Flying Spaghetti Monster

Edit: And its been over a decade since I've been to Little Big Horn and if I'm mistaken in any of the above about it I apologize. I only have my memory to go off of and I'm too lazy to google

 

[Kyriakos]

Literally wut?

I'm not saying any genocide is better than the other. I'm really confused. I'm simply saying that little big horn is explicitly not like confederate monuments. It's a battlefield with a museum attached. There may be a statue, it's been a long time since I've been there. But the character of the area is totally different as best I can recall. I did not come away thinking 'if only Custer hadn't made so many mistakes he could've won'. That's what you're meant to take away from Confederate monuments. Plus be intimidated if you are African American.

OH and:
The South declared war on the US, not the other way around. They literally started the war. They bombarded Ft. Sumner in South Carolina as the first act of war, then undertook an invasion of the North which was ultimately repulsed. The first couple of years the Union had to mount a desperate defense of their own territory as the South pillaged their way North, enslaving every free black person they could get their hands on.

Bolded because I feel it necessary to correct a really dumb thing you said in the loudest possible way.


Also:

NO ONE IS EXCUSING THE GENOCIDE OF NATIVE AMERICANS. I do not know why you are trying to draw the equivalence. Jesus H Christ Flying Spaghetti Monster

Edit: And its been over a decade since I've been to Little Big Horn and if I'm mistaken in any of the above about it I apologize. I only have my memory to go off of and I'm too lazy to google

Hey, it is not dumb to not be perfectly aware of white America's history, don't be so privileged (i am JOKING ).
That said, didn't the South make it clear it wanted to just be allowed to be its own country, and only took up arms because the North gave the ultimatum it means war? You seem to claim that the South didn't want to be independent as much as wanting to steal some land of the North, the North having allowed it to secede and the poor North being forced by the invading back-stabbing South to go to war as well. That can't be right, even i who am not learned on US history can tell you that I mean you even have presidents saying stuff to the tune of "The North was ready to go to war to keep the country as one, and the South so as to split it" etc (paraphrase)

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Once they lost the north exploited them. Carpet baggers and such. The union troops occupied the south for a while to keep the peace. Maybe it was necessary to keep the south from abusing former slaves, but it seems to have had a very negative effect. It's basically why Hayes became president, cus of the agreement struck to remove troops from the south, so the south would accept him as president. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1877

Options:

Confiscate all lands as reparations. Mass executions for treason. Build monuments by tying confederates hands together and dropping them over a central pole so their feet form a circle roughly twelve feet across, continue adding layers until it is twenty feet high, then plaster over the soles of their feet to produce a cylindrical tower.

Hey, maybe they don't have as big a complaint as they like to claim.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I dunno though, I'm not entirely convinced the money would be distributed any more equitably than the revenue generated from the returned land. Is there any reason to think it would?

The courts settled the matter and until the verdict is overturned or reversed, our system says it is correct. I don't like the result of the Citizens United case, but for now it is decided. From what I have seen of how many tribes handle money, I would not be optimistic about their ability to to spend it wisely in any case.

1 point something billion dollars would do nothing for (how many Sioux are there?)?* It really is of no importance, even if they were were a couple of thousands; one would be really dumb (let alone traitorous to memory) if they'd accept not just a bribe but one with no prospect of bettering conditions at all. Yes, 1 billion dollars would be awesome to give to... 4 people, or 10, or even 20. It is an utter joke to give as compensation for stealing their lands, to thousands.
Good for the Sioux for denying the bribe.

*Apparently, going by Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sioux) the Sioux population is around 160K people. So that 1.2 billion would mean each Sioux gets 7500 dollars. That is somewhat ludicrous to get for your stolen country, no?

Yes they are a big tribe, You misunderstand how to use capital assets. Full distribution of such a lump sum is a total waste. Its usefulness comes from its utility to to raise the income producing and service applications for tribal members now and in the future. These include things like roads, schools, housing, plus investments to bring jobs to the area or investments to produce future income for the tribe. A billion dollars invested at 5% would give the tribe $50 million a year. That is substantial and could be put to good use. If they had taken the money 20 years ago and bought $1 million of apple stock....

If you want to talk about the land as being stolen, the Sioux "stole" it from others first, so shouldn't we include the Pawnee etc into the deal? The Sioux followed US practices and sued the government to get their land back. The US courts settled the "theft" matter and gave the tribe money as compensation. I am sorry you do not like that result. Perhaps you should move to Pine ridge and put up a sign saying so. Oh, wait, you would not be welcome there since you are not native. Tribes in the US are closed societies, non Indians are not allowed.

 

[Traitorfish]

I suspect Washington would have sided with the USA rather than Virginia in 1861 because of the role he had in making the USA, but who knows. Statehood was much more important to people back then.

It was pretty much an open secret that, despite being officially non-partisan, he was in practice a Federalist. This was, after all, a man who marched himself up to Boston to look down the unlucky end of British cannons when Massachusetts was no more than an imperiled sister-colony; he doesn't strike me as a guy who'd throw away national unity for the sake of some temper-tantrum over slavery.

One of my greatest fears for the future of the US is that minority Americans will take up the slogan "No peace without justice".

I'd be more concerned about "No surrender", and it seems like at least one minority- white racists- have taken that one to heart.

 

[Lexicus]

Literally wut?

I believe Kyriakos is constitutionally unable to see mention of the US Civil War without spouting a bunch of crude Last Stand propaganda and bringing up the indigenous genocide as if the South was somehow not on board with westward expansion.

The North was ready to go to war to keep the country as one, and the South so as to split it" etc (paraphrase)

The actual substance of the quote is that the South was willing to make war to break the Union, and the North was willing to accept war rather than let it be broken. Which puts rather a different slant on things than you have.

Hot take from Tina Fey: Trump complaining about the Confederate monuments being taken down but we all know he would have destroyed them all himself if he could build condos on their sites.

 

[Kyriakos]

I believe Kyriakos is constitutionally unable to see mention of the US Civil War without spouting a bunch of crude Last Stand propaganda and bringing up the indigenous genocide as if the South was somehow not on board with westward expansion.



The actual substance of the quote is that the South was willing to make war to break the Union, and the North was willing to accept war rather than let it be broken. Which puts rather a different slant on things than you have.

Hot take from Tina Fey: Trump complaining about the Confederate monuments being taken down but we all know he would have destroyed them all himself if he could build condos on their sites.

The elephant in the closet is that the South shouldn't need permission to secede, no? Anyway, discussion is way too USian for me, and you are all way too touchy. I'll just take the prussian military observer boat out of all this and return to this side of the sewer pond.

 

[Lexicus]

The elephant in the closet is that the South shouldn't need permission to secede, no?

I actually don't care much one way or the other about secession. The slavery thing is just a little hard for me to move past.

 

[Kyriakos]

I actually don't care much one way or the other about secession. The slavery thing is just a little hard for me to move past.

I agree with you. Yet the issue is not a 1-facet one. But, as i said, i am already on the boat so just leave be alone now

 

[Lexicus]

Yet the issue is not a 1-facet one.

It's not one-faceted, but it's unambiguously good that the slave power was crushed.

 

[Kyriakos]

And on to the issue of Schleswig-Holstein.