Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Because since the fight isn't really about the statues that wouldn't really be a deterrent.
Should confederate monuments be destroyed?
- Thread starter Disgustipated
- Start date
Because since the fight isn't really about the statues that wouldn't really be a deterrent.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,206
Well, it would remove one of the fig leafs racists use to try to obscure their repellent beliefs with.
MAKE THEM say to the public "I want this statue to stay in a place of prominence because I get off on white supremacy and defending slavery".
I don't know about you, but active displays of white supremacy seems to be the only thing in right-wing American discourse that gets pundit-class to say "Hold on, things might be going a bit too far".
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
We don't even get that effect from trying to take the statues down. The vast oblivious core of the population says "Huh, what? Statue? What's the big deal?" Until the white supremacists get out there in video footage terrorizing a city with their torch march and then actually kill someone no one really pays attention. Then their attention gets diverted into "What? This is all about a statue? Who cares about a statue?" and the blame gets shifted onto the people who are "so thin skinned about a statue in the first place." At the end of the day the biggest offense in America is disturbing the obliviousness.
Which is why we need to keep the focus OFF the statues and ON the torch marching heavily armed men invading our cities. They stage these regional events so they can get hundreds of their sad little believers together to terrorize a particular city, but all it takes to send them packing is for the people of their target city of the day to turn out in their thousands, or tens of thousands and oppose them. Against bad odds their guts turn to water, they hide their torches, and they slink away. What happens to the statues after that is, frankly, inconsequential.
Which is why we need to keep the focus OFF the statues and ON the torch marching heavily armed men invading our cities. They stage these regional events so they can get hundreds of their sad little believers together to terrorize a particular city, but all it takes to send them packing is for the people of their target city of the day to turn out in their thousands, or tens of thousands and oppose them. Against bad odds their guts turn to water, they hide their torches, and they slink away. What happens to the statues after that is, frankly, inconsequential.
It's also about whether or not there are functioning institutions that can be used for the process of addressing a grievance. Just because you bring a grievance, that does not entitle you to win the settlement of your choice. But there is a moral and ethical requirement to use the existing institutions and process. Again, the US Revolution made the attempt, and resorted to rebellion after the process proved unworkable. The US Civil War had many opportunities to use the existing institutions and processes, yet steadfastly avoided making use of them.
The breakups of the USSR and Yugoslavia would fall into the category of there not at that time being functioning institutions and processes available. Now you can make the argument that they were only parts of those empires by force, and so had no moral standing to remain. But you can also make the argument that that hardly mattered in practice, because the governments to which they were subject effectively simply did not exist any longer.
Zkribbler
Deity
Not Appomattox. I'm sure they meant at the nearby village of Appomattox Courthouse, where the surrender papers were signed.
For some of these guys, a Confederate statue is their only hope for a satisfying erection.
If you wondered who clicked on "Build even more confederate monuments" it was me. I find their presence as one of examples of current US democracy and tolerance.
I think that confederate statues are not problem. CSA was not occupant. It were your people, just misguided ones joining army for various reasons. I loved playing for them in Sid Meier Gettysburg BTW.
The statues built to "remind the blacks that they may be 'free' but we are still in charge here" should be removed promptly though.
I think that confederate statues are not problem. CSA was not occupant. It were your people, just misguided ones joining army for various reasons. I loved playing for them in Sid Meier Gettysburg BTW.
The statues built to "remind the blacks that they may be 'free' but we are still in charge here" should be removed promptly though.
Last edited:
Berzerker
Deity
I thought all of them served that purpose
Lexicus
Deity
No, it's not active displays of white supremacy (the pundit class regularly engages in those), you have to literally wave swastika flags around pretty much.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,206
I try to be charitable.
Lexicus
Deity
How is that different from what you just accused the pundit class of?
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
It's one thing to say "This historical figure has done some pretty awful thing, although they've done many things that deserve to be honored." It's needed perspective, but it doesn't change that those historical figures have great accomplishments that deserve significant honor.
But what accomplishment of the Confederates generals deserve honor? Not their service to the southern cause, because the southern cause is an euphemism for slavery, and no one should get honored for serving slavery. Not victory ; while they won battles here and there, the plain truth is that they lost the battles that mattered the most, and the war with them. Not for their humanism on the battlefield ; people who lead raids to capture free people and sell them as slaves don't deserve to be rewarded for their humane actions.
About the only thing that Lee (and Davis) did that was worthy of anything remotely resembling of honor whatsoever is, ironically, refuse to be honored, and refuse to be involved in Confederate symbolism after the war. Of course, you don't honor that by building statutes to them as Confederate heroes. You honor that by making monuments that emphasize the end of the confederate cause and moving on from it.
At the end of the day, there is just nothing that (most of) these men ever did that warrant putting up statues to them, or keeping them there ; and certainly not in the amount that they exist.
(OTOH, "Perpetual union" and "more perfect union" should be given about as much weight as "Til death do us part", which is to say none at all. The idea of an indivisible political state is loudmouthed nationalist windbaggery, and the "they were traitors" narrative needs to die in a fire already. It's a distraction from the real problem (slavery), and one that only feed into the pro-Confederate efforts to make this about politics and state rights rather than about slavery)
But what accomplishment of the Confederates generals deserve honor? Not their service to the southern cause, because the southern cause is an euphemism for slavery, and no one should get honored for serving slavery. Not victory ; while they won battles here and there, the plain truth is that they lost the battles that mattered the most, and the war with them. Not for their humanism on the battlefield ; people who lead raids to capture free people and sell them as slaves don't deserve to be rewarded for their humane actions.
About the only thing that Lee (and Davis) did that was worthy of anything remotely resembling of honor whatsoever is, ironically, refuse to be honored, and refuse to be involved in Confederate symbolism after the war. Of course, you don't honor that by building statutes to them as Confederate heroes. You honor that by making monuments that emphasize the end of the confederate cause and moving on from it.
At the end of the day, there is just nothing that (most of) these men ever did that warrant putting up statues to them, or keeping them there ; and certainly not in the amount that they exist.
(OTOH, "Perpetual union" and "more perfect union" should be given about as much weight as "Til death do us part", which is to say none at all. The idea of an indivisible political state is loudmouthed nationalist windbaggery, and the "they were traitors" narrative needs to die in a fire already. It's a distraction from the real problem (slavery), and one that only feed into the pro-Confederate efforts to make this about politics and state rights rather than about slavery)
Last edited:
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Charity to the pundit class isn't really the same thing as charity to Nazis.
Aleksey_aka_al
Smiley
That video is something (predictable, though):
Of course, the European colonizers perpetrated genocide and atrocities in Americas, but it is history done.
Anti-Trumpists/ultra-liberals shoot themselves in the leg and try hard to destabilize a very stable and well-going society. Why is that?
Of course, the European colonizers perpetrated genocide and atrocities in Americas, but it is history done.
Anti-Trumpists/ultra-liberals shoot themselves in the leg and try hard to destabilize a very stable and well-going society. Why is that?
Last edited:
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Because stability and stagnation have more than the first three letters in common. It's one very short step from the one to the other, and once a society stagnates, its decline is inevitable.
Stability, in and of itself, isn't bad. But it should never become an excuse not to address problem or to make improvements. The idea that "Things are stable, so we shouldn't try to make them better" is a lackdaisical hyperconservative fantasy.
Stability, in and of itself, isn't bad. But it should never become an excuse not to address problem or to make improvements. The idea that "Things are stable, so we shouldn't try to make them better" is a lackdaisical hyperconservative fantasy.
Last edited:
Aleksey_aka_al
Smiley
A street crowd yelling and destroying statues is competent in exactly yelling and destroying things, not making things better. A world of examples does teach this kind of people nothing. If only it is not what they want: to undermine and collapse the society they are living in. Like a rebellious teenager.
There are other forms of protest. And other (real) ways of making things better. And there are of course much more serious issues.
Btw, have they started to bus the destroying crowd from place to place already?
There are other forms of protest. And other (real) ways of making things better. And there are of course much more serious issues.
Btw, have they started to bus the destroying crowd from place to place already?
Last edited:
This is strange when most of southern narrative is that war was about rights and not about slavery.
I think that perhaps positive would be build some non-racist confederacy statues then.
And even better, build some statues to remember black liberation.
People who have built something know why do not destroy.
Last edited:
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
If statues are a problem, street crowds yelling and destroying statues are in fact a solution to that problem. Perhaps not the favored one, or a very good one, but when the favored solution doens't work, sometime you go for the next best thing.
All that said, and on to what REDY said, I think that, since regional identities are unavoidable, and the south is bound to have one, there needs to be a huge push toward other aspects of southern history and identity than the Civil War and Segregation. So long as the only possible regional identity for the south is all about Lee, Jefferson Davis, the Civil War and "Northern Agression", people are going to cling to it, because the only alternative they're being offered is "The south as American Nazis" (which is just as ACW-centric), and nobody is going to buy into that identity.
All that said, and on to what REDY said, I think that, since regional identities are unavoidable, and the south is bound to have one, there needs to be a huge push toward other aspects of southern history and identity than the Civil War and Segregation. So long as the only possible regional identity for the south is all about Lee, Jefferson Davis, the Civil War and "Northern Agression", people are going to cling to it, because the only alternative they're being offered is "The south as American Nazis" (which is just as ACW-centric), and nobody is going to buy into that identity.
Last edited:
Aleksey_aka_al
Smiley
Well, how about destroying capitalism then? Because capitalism and personal gain is the root of the slavery of that era, while race and racism were really an excuse and psychological protection.
Black slaves were captured with the help of other Black/African people. How about blaming some identities back in Africa for their predecessors to help and nourish on slave trade?
Black slaves were captured with the help of other Black/African people. How about blaming some identities back in Africa for their predecessors to help and nourish on slave trade?
Similar threads
- Poll
- Locked
- Poll
