Do You Approve Of Destroying Confederate Monuments?

[Guitar's Cry]

I am for getting rid of them or adding some sort of context to diminish their glory, though admittedly I am not sure how that could be done effectively.

Statues are for glorifying history, not teaching it in general.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Unheard?
I'm sure that more hear me than want to.

I sure did.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The question wasn't about how you prefer to spend your time. The question is about public monuments, most of which are not works of art, but works of public propaganda paid for by rich people to promote their selfishness.

Some monuments are paid for by rich people, but many are paid for by public subscriptions or out of tax revenues, and in those cases, I would say the reflect at least some of the general attitude of the public of the time. That in itself can be read as a clue to history, and maybe even a useful one, since all too often, there's no other real historical evidence of the views of the commons.

 

[SomeRandom]

I propose a compromise. Next to each of these racist statues, build a bigger more glorious statue of famous civil rights leaders. As a sort of middle finger to those slave traders!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes. You know, I'm thinking that the statues are more analogous to an offensive poster (I mean one stuck to a wall, not someone here) than they are to works of art. A poster that said "Hitler was great" might incidentally be very artistically painted, but I don't think many would object to tearing it down.

Oh definitely take them down from their current places of honor. There is no doubt about that. It is what to do with them after that fact.

 

[QuestioningMind]

In the post you quoted, I only asked a question.
Instead of reading more into it...why not answer?

Shouldn't a "questioning mind" be willing to
consider the issues, & not merely gainsay?

And I responded that it's ridiculous to compare tearing down a Confederate statue with the Taliban tearing down a statue of Buddha. It's far more accurate to compare it to Germans tearing down statues that honored Nazis.

 

[Revoltingest]

Buddha was a traitorous **** who fought a war to preserve slavery.
And most Confederate monuments went up as a response to gains in black rights, like the Civil Rights movement that saw another surge of them.
They aren't worth honoring, especially what they are being honored for. Get rid of them.

You see honoring them.
I see changing the message.

 

[Revoltingest]

That’s false equivalence....

Yet another knee jerk "False equivalency!" claim.
Find some difference, & then claim there's nothing in common.
Liberals...they need a new battle cry.

 

[Revoltingest]

And I responded that it's ridiculous to compare tearing down a Confederate statue with the Taliban tearing down a statue of Buddha.

v

You miss the similarity, ie, erasing message that offends.

It's far more accurate to compare it to Germans tearing down statues that honored Nazis.

So you say.

But what it boils down to is your double
standard regarding offensive monuments.

 

[Stevicus]

So when Buddha statues are the property of Muslims
taking offense, are you similarly sanguine?

I said so, didn't I?

That is to focus upon why the statues offend.
People offended by Confederate statues seem to
have no understanding that Muslims could be just
as offended by statues of Buddha.
To care about what offends one's own group, but
to not care about what offends others leads to this
double standard.

If the focus is on why people are offended by these things, then the reasons may be different, depending on who you talk to.

I'm not sure if "offense" is really at issue here.

The question of Confederate statues and monuments is focused more on whether the current government still recognizes the causes and motivations of the Confederacy as honorable and righteous. If a government allows such a monument to remain, does this imply that they still support the cause of slavery that the Confederacy fought for?

 

[Revoltingest]

I said so, didn't I?

Not so clearly that I could assume so with certainty.
After all, you are a cagey character.

If the focus is on why people are offended by these things, then the reasons may be different, depending on who you talk to.

The "why" is the source of the double standard.

I'm not sure if "offense" is really at issue here.

That's what is expressed.
Call it "umbrage", "displeasure", or "indignation" if you want.

The question of Confederate statues and monuments is focused more on whether the current government still recognizes the causes and motivations of the Confederacy as honorable and righteous. If a government allows such a monument to remain, does this imply that they still support the cause of slavery that the Confederacy fought for?

Do you think the monuments represent a
current movement to either secede or
re-institute slavery?

 

[Revoltingest]

Statues are for glorifying history, not teaching it in general.

Why such a limited view.
I see another purpose, ie, teaching history.
Just add interpretation.
This is ordinary work for museum artifacts.
We don't exhibit things to say "this is how
things should be" or "this is to be honored".
We show things to say what happened &
how they relate to the modern world.
Some things are worthy of honor...other
things are failures. Failure teaches more
than success.

 

[Aštra’el]

No. I like Confederate statues. I like Buddhist statues. I like ancient Mesopotamian statues. I like being reminded of the great, beautiful and terrible moments throughout human history through the eyes and hands of those who came before. I would see not see their monuments destroyed, but preserved.

 

[QuestioningMind]

But what it boils down to is your double
standard regarding offensive monuments.

And what would that double-standard be, exactly?

And do you think it was wrong for Germans to remove monuments to Nazis? If not, why is removing Confederate statues so wrong?

 

[Revoltingest]

And what would that double-standard be, exactly?

A personal standard based upon what offends,
not upon general toppling or saving of historic
monuments. Dang....I thought I'd been clear
about this all along.

And do you think it was wrong for Germans to remove monuments to Nazis?

I have a general standard about preserving
historic monuments...warts & all. Add new
interpretations.
Haven't you gleaned that yet from my posts?

 

[Stevicus]

Not so clearly that I could assume so with certainty.
After all, you are a cagey character.

I do my best.

The "why" is the source of the double standard.

I suppose, although to be honest, before you mentioned it in this thread, I wasn't consciously aware of the Taliban destroying Buddha statues. I've seen quite a few stories on the Taliban, but they're doing far worse things than that, so it seems other things they do might take precedence for outrage.

So, if I'm understanding correctly, the double standard here is that the same people are saying it's okay to destroy a Confederate statue are saying it's not okay to destroy a Buddha statue.

My view is different from that. Public property is under the control of whichever government has jurisdiction.

I suppose one might see a different standard in terms of judging the legitimacy of whichever governmental body is making the decision. A small town council might not have a great deal of importance in the grand scheme of things, but if they're duly elected, it seems clear that their authority in this situation is legitimate. As for the Taliban, I can see where some might question their legitimacy. But our own government pretty much screwed the pooch on that whole Afghanistan thing anyway.

In a way, it was kind of like that after the Civil War, too. That's part of how we ended up with all these monuments to the Confederacy.

That's what is expressed.
Call it "umbrage", "displeasure", or "indignation" if you want.

It could be that, or maybe they just didn't think it was relevant.

Do you think the monuments represent a
current movement to either secede or
re-institute slavery?

I think the monuments were erected by those who wanted to honor those whom they considered heroes for a lost cause. The dispute today seems to be about how we've looked back on that cause. I don't think anyone wanted to secede, re-institute slavery, or re-fight the Civil War - neither when the monuments were built, nor now.

Acceptance or rejection of the monuments appears to be rooted in conflicting perceptions of the war.

Those who accept the statues would indicate acceptance of the view that the Confederacy was a noble and honorable cause worthy of such commemoration. Those who reject the statues would indicate disagreement with that view, that the Confederacy was not a worthy cause to be commemorated. They apparently disagree on what that actual cause was.

 

[Revoltingest]

I do my best.



I suppose, although to be honest, before you mentioned it in this thread, I wasn't consciously aware of the Taliban destroying Buddha statues. I've seen quite a few stories on the Taliban, but they're doing far worse things than that, so it seems other things they do might take precedence for outrage.

So, if I'm understanding correctly, the double standard here is that the same people are saying it's okay to destroy a Confederate statue are saying it's not okay to destroy a Buddha statue.

My view is different from that. Public property is under the control of whichever government has jurisdiction.

I suppose one might see a different standard in terms of judging the legitimacy of whichever governmental body is making the decision. A small town council might not have a great deal of importance in the grand scheme of things, but if they're duly elected, it seems clear that their authority in this situation is legitimate. As for the Taliban, I can see where some might question their legitimacy. But our own government pretty much screwed the pooch on that whole Afghanistan thing anyway.

In a way, it was kind of like that after the Civil War, too. That's part of how we ended up with all these monuments to the Confederacy.



It could be that, or maybe they just didn't think it was relevant.



I think the monuments were erected by those who wanted to honor those whom they considered heroes for a lost cause. The dispute today seems to be about how we've looked back on that cause. I don't think anyone wanted to secede, re-institute slavery, or re-fight the Civil War - neither when the monuments were built, nor now.

Acceptance or rejection of the monuments appears to be rooted in conflicting perceptions of the war.

Those who accept the statues would indicate acceptance of the view that the Confederacy was a noble and honorable cause worthy of such commemoration. Those who reject the statues would indicate disagreement with that view, that the Confederacy was not a worthy cause to be commemorated. They apparently disagree on what that actual cause was.

I favor new interpretive approaches to offensive statues,
be it the evil of the Confederacy, or the blasphemy of
Buddha (Muslim perspective).

 

[Shaul]

I think each case should be determined on its merits by the people of the community.

 

[Stevicus]

I favor new interpretive approaches to offensive statues,
be it the evil of the Confederacy, or the blasphemy of
Buddha (Muslim perspective).

What sort of interpretive approaches?

A lot of statues seem to be large collectors of pigeon poop. Nobody pays much attention to them anyway.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

Beat me to it.
I would say there is some risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and I always favour historical accuracy.
But majority of the confederate statues represent revisionist history. Not history, per se.