Do You Approve Of Destroying Confederate Monuments?

[Revoltingest]

In the news....
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article264769574.html
Excerpted...
A North Carolina town watched live online as a bulldozer pushed down its Confederate monument. Mondale Robinson, the mayor of Enfield, North Carolina, took to Facebook to share a livestream as a Confederate monument in the town’s Randolph Park was demolished by a bulldozer on Sunday, Aug. 21. “Yes, sirs! Death to the Confederacy around here,” Robinson said in the video as a bulldozer knocked the monument over. “Not in my town. Not on my watch.”


If you approve of destroying Confederate themed
monuments, do you also approve of the Taliban's
destruction of statues of Buddha? If not, why?

 

[Heyo]

In the news....
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article264769574.html
Excerpted...
A North Carolina town watched live online as a bulldozer pushed down its Confederate monument. Mondale Robinson, the mayor of Enfield, North Carolina, took to Facebook to share a livestream as a Confederate monument in the town’s Randolph Park was demolished by a bulldozer on Sunday, Aug. 21. “Yes, sirs! Death to the Confederacy around here,” Robinson said in the video as a bulldozer knocked the monument over. “Not in my town. Not on my watch.”


If you approve of destroying Confederate themed
monuments, do you also approve of the Taliban's
destruction of statues of Buddha? If not, why?

It's a bit late to hate on the Confederacy, in fact, too late.
Better to keep it as a symbol of shame and a memorial to never do secession again. (With a plaque expressing exactly that.) It's called "coming to terms with one's past". Better than burying it and doing it again.

 

[Estro Felino]

Monuments are also for reminding people of bad things, so they won't be repeated.

We are speaking of a statue that has more than 100 years, represents a historical period and an epoch and has a historical and artistic value.

 

[Windwalker]

In the news....
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article264769574.html
Excerpted...
A North Carolina town watched live online as a bulldozer pushed down its Confederate monument. Mondale Robinson, the mayor of Enfield, North Carolina, took to Facebook to share a livestream as a Confederate monument in the town’s Randolph Park was demolished by a bulldozer on Sunday, Aug. 21. “Yes, sirs! Death to the Confederacy around here,” Robinson said in the video as a bulldozer knocked the monument over. “Not in my town. Not on my watch.”


If you approve of destroying Confederate themed
monuments, do you also approve of the Taliban's
destruction of statues of Buddha? If not, why?

There is no comparison between these two. The history of these monuments is the early 1900's, and it had a specific political revisionist history in mind. They represent something entirely different than statues of religious figures, such as Buddha, or Jesus, or Mary, which are devotional in nature.

Here's an excerpt about the history of these monuments, erected by the United Daughters of the Confederacy:

“The conventional view of the UDC is that they are innocent old ladies who just want to remember their Confederate ancestors,” said Jalane Schmidt, a race and religion professor at the University of Virginia. “They created an ideology which glorified the ‘Old South,’ and dressed this up in seemingly harmless cotillion balls and bake sales.

“What is harmful about them is that for generations, they vetted textbooks, which were adopted into Southern public schools. These books promoted a false Lost Cause version of history to impressionable young white students, who then grew up to enforce segregation.”

Chief among Lost Cause principles is that the Civil War was not about slavery. The Confederacy was simply defending its states’ rights and homeland from Northern aggression, according to that belief. Another idea included in the Lost Cause is that slaves were contented and happy with their condition, and slaveholders were mostly kind to them.

Members of the United Daughters of the Confederacy. Source: Alabama Department of Archives and History.


These principles permeated the South through textbooks, pamphlets and speeches written or influenced by the Daughters, according to historians. Today, Southerners often repeat these same ideas when they oppose removing monuments.
​

Daughters of Confederacy Put Up Statues, Indoctrinated Generations, Historians Say - BirminghamWatch

So these monuments are about a living ideal the denial of the evils of slavery in the South and the bloody civil war that was fought to end it. They symbolize racism, not religious devotion.

 

[F1fan]

My own view is that the USA has no reason to honor members of the confederacy or the confederacy itself. Many of the monuments were installed in the early 20th century. There was a monument I came across in a prominent neighborhood of Kansas City that was installed in the 1930's by the Daughter's of the Confederacy. This monument was at 51st and Ward parkway, and located on part of the largest Civil War battle west of the Mississippi, the Battle of Westport.

Welcome to the Battle of Westport, October 21-23, 1864

The confederates lost this battle. There is a large memorial of the battle at Loose park which describes the battle, which is historic. This display is on 51st about a half mile to the east of the DotC monument.

When I found the confederate monument I was shocked that it was in a prominent neighborhood and that it was still there. Within a year it had been removed and placed in storage somewhere. The 1930's were a very racist era for the USA and the KKK was a national organization that had members in congress and many states. By the 60's it was so bad that the civil rights movement rose from it. The USA still struggles with racism as we saw with the rise of Trump and his toxic followers. These monuments do not serve the public, and only help validate the racism of certain citizens who don't seem to be well informed about civics, citizenship, or Christian values.

 

[F1fan]

Monuments are also for reminding people of bad things, so they won't be repeated.

We are speaking of a statue that has more than 100 years, represents a historical period and an epoch and has a historical and artistic value.

Yup, 100 years ago, a time in the USA when racism was on the rise, and many saw monuments to the confederacy as a means to promote the Lost Cause. We don't see monuments on the North to celebrate the victory over the traitors. We just see historic monuments to that sad period of American history.

Celebrating the traitors of the confederacy is not honoring history.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is no comparison between these two.

In both cases, they destroy statues they find offensive.
You don't see this at all, eh.

The history of these monuments is the early 1900's, and it had a specific political revisionist history in mind. They represent something entirely different than statues of religious figures, such as Buddha, or Jesus, or Mary, which are devotional in nature.

Here's an excerpt about the history of these monuments, erected by the United Daughters of the Confederacy:

“The conventional view of the UDC is that they are innocent old ladies who just want to remember their Confederate ancestors,” said Jalane Schmidt, a race and religion professor at the University of Virginia. “They created an ideology which glorified the ‘Old South,’ and dressed this up in seemingly harmless cotillion balls and bake sales.

“What is harmful about them is that for generations, they vetted textbooks, which were adopted into Southern public schools. These books promoted a false Lost Cause version of history to impressionable young white students, who then grew up to enforce segregation.”

Chief among Lost Cause principles is that the Civil War was not about slavery. The Confederacy was simply defending its states’ rights and homeland from Northern aggression, according to that belief. Another idea included in the Lost Cause is that slaves were contented and happy with their condition, and slaveholders were mostly kind to them.

Members of the United Daughters of the Confederacy. Source: Alabama Department of Archives and History.


These principles permeated the South through textbooks, pamphlets and speeches written or influenced by the Daughters, according to historians. Today, Southerners often repeat these same ideas when they oppose removing monuments.
​

Daughters of Confederacy Put Up Statues, Indoctrinated Generations, Historians Say - BirminghamWatch

The Taliban likely use the same rationale, ie,
the harm done by heinous ideas embodied by
the statues & their history means they must be
destroyed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Celebrating the traitors of the confederacy is not honoring history.

Celebrating the blasphemy of Buddhists isn't honoring history either.
It was a terrible ignorant time before people became enlightened
with The Truth of Islam. Those dark days must be erased.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

In the news....
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article264769574.html
Excerpted...
A North Carolina town watched live online as a bulldozer pushed down its Confederate monument. Mondale Robinson, the mayor of Enfield, North Carolina, took to Facebook to share a livestream as a Confederate monument in the town’s Randolph Park was demolished by a bulldozer on Sunday, Aug. 21. “Yes, sirs! Death to the Confederacy around here,” Robinson said in the video as a bulldozer knocked the monument over. “Not in my town. Not on my watch.”


If you approve of destroying Confederate themed
monuments, do you also approve of the Taliban's
destruction of statues of Buddha? If not, why?

I have no problem if a community wants to destroy confederate monuments. I think it is a good thing. As long as they keep the history in the museums and books so we can all know what is was. Statues and monuments are not just saying this happened we must remember they are saying we think they deserve special remembrance for something we agree with. We don't build statues and monuments to people and causes that we disagree with. It is time they go.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think monuments symbolizing racism and slavery should be moved to a museum and displayed as a part of history. In some countries, there are museums that display medieval torture devices, and people often don't take this as approval or glorification of torture.

That said, I'm also against keeping such monuments outside museums, since a public display of, say, a Confederate statue is indeed problematic and could easily be taken as a gesture of reverence or approval.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have no problem if a community wants to destroy confederate monuments.

If the community of Muslims decides to
destroy statues of Buddha, is this OK too?

I think it is a good thing. As long as they keep the history in the museums and books so we can all know what is was.

In this case, the statue was bulldozed.
Destruction is the theme of this thread.
So it's cheating to speak of preservation
& removing from public view.

 

[esmith]

So, it is okay to remove history? These monuments depicited a time in our history that was a dark time.
In my opinion it would be more adventageous to leave them standing to remind us of those time.
One could say that a monument celebrates the person, then on the other hand what do tombstones represent?
Should the tombstones of those that died fighting for the Confederacy be removed since basically they honor the person, just as those monuments do.

 

[Windwalker]

In both cases, they destroy statues they find offensive.
You don't see this at all, eh.

The only comparison is that they are destroying statues. Would you compare the Taliban with construction workers demolishing an old building that had gargoyles in front of them because they want to build a new house on the property? It's the motives behind why that is the key difference, not the fact that they are both statues!

Destroying Buddha statues, are for one thing, antiquities. The UDC monuments are not. They are modern. Destroying Buddha statues are an act of religious aggression against other religions. Destroying these monuments to a false narrative about the Civil war, the "Lost Cause" distortion of history, is because they have had a direct influence on southern racism and Jim Crow laws which resulted in the oppression and deaths of blacks in the South following the Civil War.

These are not at all comparable except on the most surface levels, that they are both statues. Statues get destroyed everyday, like tossing out that little dashboard statue of a hula dancer for the dashboard of a car. That means nothing.

The Taliban likely use the same rationale, ie,
the harm done by heinous ideas embodied by
the statues & their history means they must be
destroyed.

You seriously see these as the same? I suppose, we should just say that January 6 was just a tourist visit of the nation's capitol too? To prosecute that is to deny a legitimate point of view?

And BTW, branding this as a "liberal" POV, is BS. This is a rational pov, looking at the facts of what happened. Conservatives can see this is BS too. So don't obfuscate this matter with that political rhetoric.

 

[Revoltingest]

So, it is okay to remove history? These monuments depicited a time in our history that was a dark time.

It's fascinating watching some liberals emulate the
Taliban. The only difference is the kind of offensive
statues they approve of destroying.

 

[Augustus]

If you approve of destroying Confederate themed
monuments, do you also approve of the Taliban's
destruction of statues of Buddha? If not, why?

People have removed statues from public spaces for thousands of years based on contemporary preferences.

Romans tore down statues of 'bad' Emperors.

People in the ancient world who wanted to make a new statue often reused existing statues because it was cost effective than getting new stone to sculpt.

A statue of the Duke of Cumberland was removed from Cavendish Square square in London by the famously woke Victorians, who considered that his post-Culloden 'pacification' of the Highlands "was just not cricket".

Eastern European countries have removed statues of Lenin and Stalin, one was even turned into a statue of Darth Vader.

African and Asian countries have removed statues of kings and queens erected by their colonisers.

These are not the same as destroying irreplaceable great works of art of global historical significance a la the Taliban.

Any decision would need to be made on a case by case basis based on the person depicted and the cultural, historical and artistic merits of the statue, not simply "Person X bad".

The barriers for removing some generic 20th C statues aren't all that high imo.

 

[Twilight Hue]

In the news....
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/state/north-carolina/article264769574.html
Excerpted...
A North Carolina town watched live online as a bulldozer pushed down its Confederate monument. Mondale Robinson, the mayor of Enfield, North Carolina, took to Facebook to share a livestream as a Confederate monument in the town’s Randolph Park was demolished by a bulldozer on Sunday, Aug. 21. “Yes, sirs! Death to the Confederacy around here,” Robinson said in the video as a bulldozer knocked the monument over. “Not in my town. Not on my watch.”


If you approve of destroying Confederate themed
monuments, do you also approve of the Taliban's
destruction of statues of Buddha? If not, why?

I can see the removal of confederate monuments and relocating them elsewhere, but im not for wantonly destroying them.

The war wasn't entirely revolving around slavery if people actually studied their history. The Union was still quite racist itself, and you don't see calls for the removal of Union statues and monuments in kind.

I also advocate the continued preservation of confederate cemeteries as well. and would suggest some confederate monuments be placed there with the remains of the soldiers who fought in the Civil War with full military honors.

 

[Revoltingest]

The only comparison is that they are destroying statues.

There's more.
The reason they destroy statues are the same,
ie, the history & message offends them.

So many liberals cannot see these similarities
because they are so offended by the Confederacy
that it blinds them to similarities. There's also
the disdain for Islam, & unwillingness to see that
Buddhism offends them just as strongly.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

If the community of Muslims decides to
destroy statues of Buddha, is this OK too?

Sure.

In this case, the statue was bulldozed.
Destruction is the theme of this thread.
So it's cheating to speak of preservation
& removing from public view.

The monuments and statues that were built to promote/celebrate the confederacy should be destroyed, however the history needs to be preserved.

 

[Revoltingest]

People have removed statues from public spaces for thousands of years based on contemporary preference.
Romans tore down statues of 'bad' Emperors.

If the Romans (or others) did something, does
that make it cromulent for all to do the same now?

That said, I'm also against keeping such monuments outside museums, since a public display of, say, a Confederate statue is indeed problematic and could easily be taken as a gesture of reverence or approval.

I'm sure the Taliban used the same reasoning
to destroy statues of Buddha. Do you think
that they too did the right thing?

 

[F1fan]

If the community of Muslims decides to
destroy statues of Buddha, is this OK too?

What is offensive about Buddhist statues? Nothing.

There is plenty offensive about statues placed to promote a racist ideal, and a society that was not only racist, but actively treated dark skinned human beings as less than human.

We don't need to celebrate our history of racism. Too many see this as endorsement for their racism today. If America was full of Buddhists instead of "God fearing Christians' there never would have been these statues, and we wouldn't have the problem of racism as we do today. Trump would never have been selected as a nominee, nor elected.