Should confederate monuments be destroyed?

[Mechanicalsalvation]

If it really is all about history, let's leave Bobby Lee and Stonewall and Jeff Davis where they are and raise larger statues of Lincoln and Grant right next to them. I will gladly contribute to any efforts to build Bill Sherman statues in every town in South Carolina.

Yeah, becouse that would be so historic and not at all conforming to some history disregarding narrowly ideological, intolerant and naive point of view....

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

 

[MilesGregarius]

Yeah, becouse that would be so historic and not at all conforming to some history disregarding narrowly ideological, intolerant and naive point of view....

Way to miss the point.

 

[Evie]

Historical relativism has no place in determining which part of history we honor. If we today view an act as a crime/sin/wrong/whatever, then that is what matter in determining whether honor for that act or closely related ones is warranted (and whether we should maintain honors given in the past). That does not mean we need to condemn everything about the people in question.

We should not honor slaveholding; that does not mean we should deny honor for other accomplishments to people who held slave.

But the Civil War and Southern Cause were primarily and centrally about slavery, as easily demonstrated by the various secessions documents. The notion that slavery was a relatively small part of the whole mess has long since been demonstrated to be a later attempt at laundering the Confederacy, not historical

 

[REDY]

History is just one thing. One symbol should mean for various people different things and this is imho root of the problem. That is why I do not believe that just placing some contextual information under the statues can help in this problem. The part of people will be offended one way or another. You should know that guy on the statue hadnt best character, that statues were built in time of brutal segregation and racism and the lost cause is just myth but you still can feel that part of your identity was hijacked.

For example for people of Stalin´s Georgean hometown means Stalin different thing that for people of Petrograd lot but it does not necessary mean that they are mindless communists.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Historical relativism has no place in determining which part of history we honor. If we today view an act as a crime/sin/wrong/whatever, then that is what matter in determining whether honor for that act or closely related ones is warranted (and whether we should maintain honors given in the past).

Kindly speak for yourself not for some we/us-group unless you are going to identify it.
Where did you get the idea that historical relativism is to be discounted? Here on earth we live in evolving reality and to put an objective standards at every moment of that progressive reality is just absurd.
The ancient Greek societies were strongly participating in a slavery and it was a good thing to do for them and its a still largerly good thing looking from todays perspective. However the same kind of slavery in todays Greece would be no doubt a crime and the reason for that is evolution of the society since Christ and humanism has happened among many other things since then.

That does not mean we need to condemn everything about the people in question.

We should not honor slaveholding; that does not mean we should deny honor for other accomplishments to people who held slave.

You are of course wrong. Any achievement in the past forms a base for our present standards/situation and was achieved through sacrifice. Slavery is just a different form of sacrifice people involuntary make but which in case of an ancient Greece was perhaps a necessity which ultimately led to the invention of democracy and the kind of civilized society we have today build on that ancient model. I honor slavery in that light: it is becouse countless people in the past that have been slaves which gave the needed support to their respective societies that me or you dont have to be that.

But the Civil War and Southern Cause were primarily and centrally about slavery, as easily demonstrated by the various secessions documents. The notion that slavery was a relatively small part of the whole mess has long since been demonstrated to be a later attempt at laundering the Confederacy, not historical

I have strong doubts this is the case as my quote from Lincoln suggests the president made it clear he didnt want to abolish the slavery in the states were it was institutionalized but the southern states seceeded never the less.

 

[PhroX]

I have strong doubts this is the case as my quote from Lincoln suggests the president made it clear he didnt want to abolish the slavery in the states were it was institutionalized but the southern states seceeded never the less.

Might I suggest you have a look at what those who both seceded and started the war - the leadership of the Southern states - said about their reasons for doing so?

Here's a sample from the South Carolina Declaration of Causes for Secession:

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

Similar sentiment can be seen across the board, with both the declarations of secession from the other states, and many statements from individuals in leadership positions in the South. Whatever Lincoln might have intended, the South believed that his election would lead to the abolition of slavery and went to war to prevent this.

 

[Lexicus]

and it was a good thing to do for them and its a still largerly good thing looking from todays perspective.

I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with you.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with you.

Thats fine but why?

 

[Senethro]

slavery is bad m8

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

slavery is bad m8

Mkay. So is violence. Should we just disband police and army or should we order our law enforcement institutions not to use violence? Context m8.

 

[Senethro]

Imagine.......a world without violence...........makes u think

 

[Lexicus]

Thats fine but why?

Because slavery was a moral abomination in ancient times as well. I do struggle with the question of whether slavery was actually necessary to extract an agricultural surplus but tend to think that surplus could have been extracted other ways, particularly since the first civilizations do not appear to have primarily relied on slavery to extract surpluses.

 

[Senethro]

Nah, seriously though, I don't think slave states were necessary to produce a democracy. To argue democracy is a sufficient good that it retroactively justifies slaving suggests it could be good over a much wider number of contexts.

If slaving states have appeared to develop more quickly then I'd put it down to centralization of surplus for development and an economic incentive to expand and dominate. But then they didn't need slaves to build the pyramids. Just religion, organization and the ability to defer labour seasonally I guess...

 

[Lexicus]

Nah, seriously though, I don't think slave states were necessary to produce a democracy.

Only insofar as democracy is literally a community of not-slaves. The status of a free citizen requires something unfree to contrast against...and we are still wrestling with what that means in our societies today. We still haven't achieved Lincoln's ideal "as I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master."

 

[Kyriakos]

Nah, seriously though, I don't think slave states were necessary to produce a democracy. To argue democracy is a sufficient good that it retroactively justifies slaving suggests it could be good over a much wider number of contexts.

If slaving states have appeared to develop more quickly then I'd put it down to centralization of surplus for development and an economic incentive to expand and dominate. But then they didn't need slaves to build the pyramids. Just religion, organization and the ability to defer labour seasonally I guess...

It isn't actually known what kind of workers built the Pyramids, and slave labour wouldn't be a very bad bet for the menial part of the work (carrying all that huge masonry). Afaik there are various theories, and slave-use is not out of the question at all. Furthermore, if there is one thing ancient wars created a surplus of, that is slaves.

Only insofar as democracy is literally a community of not-slaves. The status of a free citizen requires something unfree to contrast against...and we are still wrestling with what that means in our societies today. We still haven't achieved Lincoln's ideal "as I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master."

That isn't correct, though. Democracy in ancient Greece is not juxtaposed to slavery, but to oligarchy and kingship and/or tyranny. It is about all the citizens getting to vote, juxtaposed to just the rich (oligarchy) or the noble (aristocracy) or those tied to a usurper (tyranny).

 

[Lexicus]

It isn't actually known what kind of workers build the Pyramids, and slave labour wouldn't be a very bad bet for the menial part of the work (carrying all that huge masonry). Afaik there are various theories, and slave-use is not out of the question at all.

I dunno, this doesn't jive with what I've read:

https://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2010/01/12/egypt-new-find-shows-slaves-didnt-build-pyramids

Dieter Wildung, a former director of Berlin's Egyptian Museum, said it is "common knowledge in serious Egyptology" that the pyramid builders were not slaves and that the construction of the pyramids and the story of the Israelites in Egypt were separated by hundreds of years.

http://harvardmagazine.com/2003/07/who-built-the-pyramids-html

Now, drawing on diverse strands of evidence, from geological history to analysis of living arrangements, bread-making technology, and animal remains, Egyptologist Mark Lehner, an associate of Harvard's Semitic Museum, is beginning to fashion an answer. He has found the city of the pyramid builders. They were not slaves.

 

[Kyriakos]

If it is so common a knowledge, care to present what decisive evidence it has to make it convincing, and not just another theory which can have passionate proponents?
A village of workers of the pyramids does sound a bit sketchy; this isn't a documented workshop of sculptors in the classical era.

Not sure why you mentioned jewish people. Afaik they maybe weren't even in Egypt in the first place, and even if they were they would not likely be having anything to do with building the Pyramids.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Because slavery was a moral abomination in ancient times as well. I do struggle with the question of whether slavery was actually necessary to extract an agricultural surplus but tend to think that surplus could have been extracted other ways, particularly since the first civilizations do not appear to have primarily relied on slavery to extract surpluses.

Moral abomination? Individualy to the person on which the slavery was forced yes but not to the society. Or do you think the Greeks seen themselves as a community of ruthless criminals and then went on create the finest piece of literature, art and democracy?
It seems to me that the extra free labor force has allowed the more progressive societies to stay competitive with the others in fairly hostile environment...

Nah, seriously though, I don't think slave states were necessary to produce a democracy. To argue democracy is a sufficient good that it retroactively justifies slaving suggests it could be good over a much wider number of contexts.

If slaving states have appeared to develop more quickly then I'd put it down to centralization of surplus for development and an economic incentive to expand and dominate. But then they didn't need slaves to build the pyramids. Just religion, organization and the ability to defer labour seasonally I guess...

The reason for having slaves could be manifold but even the neutral one such as staying competitive in environment where slavery is universaly accepted has to be considered

 

[Lexicus]

If it is so common a knowledge, care to present what decisive evidence it has to make it convincing, and not just another theory which can have passionate proponents?

I'm not an Egyptologist, but I'm pretty sure the people I've quoted know more about the subject than you do.

Not sure why you mentioned jewish people. Afaik they maybe weren't even in Egypt in the first place, and even if they were they would not likely be having anything to do with building the Pyramids.

I have no idea what you're talking about; I didn't mention Jewish people.

 

[Kyriakos]

Tell your general Lee that he is facing free men here, not slaves

I'm not an Egyptologist, but I'm pretty sure the people I've quoted know more about the subject than you do.



I have no idea what you're talking about; I didn't mention Jewish people.

Ehm, your own link and even quoted post ( lol?) mentions them to debunk that as if anyone was arguing it was so. Did you bother to read your link or just run a fast google?

And no sloppy appeals to authority, pls. Yes, i am not an egyptologist. That sort of doesn't mean an egyptologist or a group of them is automatically right to claim WHATEVER. It is why i asked what status their theory has, eg what other egyptologists think, what it is based on, etc. You know, an actual logical point.