That is somewhat misleading. I know of no statues that were put up because the person depicted was a "slaver." I know of several that were erected because of what they accomplished during a period of history when owning slaves was the norm.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do You Approve Of Destroying Confederate Monuments?
- Thread starter Revoltingest
- Start date
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
What did they accomplish, these depicted persons?
In the Confederate states I mean, I’m not talking about Sir Walter Raleigh (whose statues are nonetheless problematic, far more so than any Buddhist monuments)
Augustus
…
Many Confederate statues do seem to have been put up in the early to mid 20th C to promote a "Lost Cause" type mythology, by bigoted politicians or groups such as this:
United Daughters of the Confederacy - Wikipedia
These are not just people who happened to be involved in slavery, or around in slave owning times, but people chosen to mythologise this era.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
The Confederate Monuments are monuments to past Democrats who wanted to divide the USA so they could perpetuate slavery. This same attitude of division is shared by the modern Democrat party and the Taliban. The monument destroying in the US is sort of like the criminals returning to the scene of the crime and trying to destroying incriminating evidence, so they can deny what they did, by making someone else appear like the boogeyman.
In 1860 the Democrat party was deeply divided over slavery. Half the party wanted slavery and the other half wanted to end slavery. The division in the party was so bad both factions ran their own presidential candidates in the 1860 election. This division in the once united and strong Democracy party allowed the newer and smaller Republican Party and Abraham Lincoln to become President. Lincoln, the Republicans, and the anti slavery faction of the Democrat party worked together to end slavery.
The Emancipation Proclamation to end slavery resulted in the defeated Southern Democrat faction deciding to form a second country that would forever allow slavery to continue. The Civil War was caused by this large Democrat Party Pro-slavery Faction trying to divide the county. This is happening today.
The modern divisive people in the Democrat party are philosophical descendants from this faction in the Democrat Party. They are trying to hide and disgust their true colors by destroying and hiding the evidence of their dark past. The monument destroyers are always Democrats who act like they are defenders of freedom. This is typical Democrat hypocrisy. The Taliban also makes a bogeyman to hide their true nature.
Systemic Racism is America was created by this pro-slavery faction of the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party should have been dissolved after the Civil War, like the Nazi Party was dissolved after WWII. It should have been renamed and reorganized to reflect change. But the Democrat party was larger and was allowed to remain with the pro-slavery faction continuing their goals through the Legislative process; South would rise again.
This was easy to do since bills in Congress have nice sounding names but will allow all types of pork barrel addenda added that have little to do with the name. Everyone signs due to everyone more concerned with their own self serving pork getting through. For example, the Inflation Bill that the Democrats just passed is less about inflation and more about their own Green Energy Agenda; bait and switch. Systemic racism used this same tactic of adding to want sounded good.
This is why the worse places for blacks to live in the USA are ruled by Democrats, who now try to hide this evidence from the past. It still puzzles me why Black still wish to be semi-slaves to the Democrat Party. It could be a type of Stockholm syndrome. Some are breaking away, but this takes courage since they know they will be treated harshly by the dual standard Democrats; Justice Thomas. We would be better voting out the living monuments to that past, then destroying the stone monuments. Only the living monuments can do real damage to the USA.
Why is that a question for me? Ask the people who put them up. Perhaps you are more gifted at deciding the worth of everybody else than I am, but I do not like making judgments all over everything.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
My question was a direct response to this comment of yours;
"I know of several that were erected because of what they accomplished"
Heyo
Veteran Member
And neither was Rommel resisting the Nazis. But he has a monument and Bundeswehr barracks named after him. Both are controversial. Some people also don't like memorials for fallen soldiers and say it gives too much importance to militarism.
On the other hand we also have memorials dedicated to the unknown deserters - which are controversial because the militarists don't like it to honour deserters.
It depends on who is being depicted, although a common view about General Lee was that he was personally against slavery and against the Secession, but that he was loyal to his home state of Virginia and he joined the Confederate cause for that reason. This seems to be one of the core ideas in the Lost Cause version of Civil War history. One who has been inculcated with that version of history would look at a statue of General Lee and not see a slaver.
Some of it also had to do with many in the North who wanted reconciliation with the South. The Northern industrialists and capitalists just wanted to do business and make money, so why should they care if the South wanted to build monuments or tell hokey stories about the Civil War? It's no skin off them.
America overall at the time seemed directed towards building a new image and identity for America which encouraged and promoted staunch patriotism and a quasi-nationalistic viewpoint of the kind which still persists today, along with strong devotion to conservative Christian values.
It's kind of bizarre to think about it, but the fact is, all of these former Confederate slave states were and still are American states, and as such, their history has interwoven into the overall tapestry of American history.
Some believe we should never have honored these people in the first place - not just the Confederate slavers, but all of them from America's past, including Washington and Jefferson. When you think about it, the whole enterprise kind of started on a shaky moral foundation. Bunch of people came over from Europe, took over the land, set themselves up a government, and rolled across the entire continent, killing and destroying entire cultures in their path.
I have somewhat mixed views about it myself, at least in terms of how far we want to take this. It's not erasing history, although it's a fair question whether we want to honor and praise historical figures even if they did things which are considered hateful, evil, and despicable. But if they did do some good things, can they be honored for that? Or does the evil outweigh the good?
Exactly -- "several." Quite different from "all."
But let me give an example: Egerton Ryerson, March 24 1803 to February 19, 1882.
Ryerson was a Canadian educator and Methodist minister. He was a significant contributor to the design of the Canadian public school system. After a stint editing the Methodist denominational newspaper The Christian Guardian, Ryerson was appointed Chief Superintendent of Education for Upper Canada (now Ontario) in 1844. In that role, he supported reforms such as creating school boards, making textbooks more uniform, and making education free. Because of his contributions to education in Ontario, he was the namesake of Ryerson University and is the namesake of Ryerson Press as well as Ryerson, Ontario.
However, some of his writings influenced the Canadian Indian residential school system, which was established after his death. In April of 2022, the university was renamed to Toronto Metropolitan University and a statue of him at the main entrance to the University was torn down. But notice -- he did not start the Residential School System (it started after his death), and it was only the interpretation of his writing by other people that were at fault in the creation of that system.
Yet, his legacy has paid the price -- and in my view, that is most undeserved and very egregious. The man who supported creation of school boards, making textbooks more uniform, and making education free deserves much, much better.
Explaining the memorial's place in history,
ie, how it was to honor something we now
see as wrong.
I read plaques.
But if no attention were being paid, why is there
all this news about people paying attention, &
demanding their removal?
You remind me of the old Yogi Berra quote.
To paraphrase...
That place is so busy that nobody goes there anymore.
That's not really the point. It's about preserving
historic memorials, & changing the message
when it suits us, eg, explaining what an honored
person actually did to commit evil, eg, slavery,
secession, communism, Nazism.
This keeps history alive, educational, & uncomfortable.
I'm deliberately trying to get you to understand my point,
ie, keep historic statues, & add new interpretations where
useful. To sanitize history by hiding the horror is to deny
the masses knowledge thereof. Ignorance is comfortable,
but it weakens us.
Your point is that there are differences that matter to you,
as though they trump all other views. Piffle. Tis naught
but a double standard.
Recent history is still history. All history starts out
thus. That's a bad reason to sanitize it.
Jim Crow & other examples of fallout from slavery
& the Civil War are compelling historical events &
trends, the recent existence of some notwithstanding.
Should people be unaware that such hate once existed?
It's an interesting point that the history of the
Democrat & Republican parties' roles. It could
be part of new interpretations added to some.
People would benefit from exposure to history.
Note: I'd try to keep things informative, & not
demonize anyone. Let people's judgment be
formed from the facts...not a polemic.
Augustus
…
It doesn't "sanitise" anything though.
If every mawkish post 1920 Confederate memorial was removed it would have basically zero impact on knowledge of Civil War history in the US. Tbh it would probably increase it for generations due to the publicity.
Not to mention that if education was the goal you could a) replace them with a range of educational displays/memorials covering a wider range of people, or b) spend the money used to maintain all of the confederate monuments on something that actually does teach people about history.
You would also still have plenty of actually historic Confederate monuments to remind people and plenty generic 20th C ones too.
Replacing one of the many hundreds of low quality, generic, modern statues of an overrepresented historical figure with a low quality, generic modern statue of a less represented historical figure (of even a medium quality and less generic one) does not produce any loss to a society educationally, aesthetically or historically, and should really result in a net gain on one of these factors at least.
Remove it from view because it offends?
That's sanitizing.
Oh, you suggest I've some hidden agenda?
Not education, eh.
Well, that is indeed the point I've made many times,
ie, add interpretive info to the memorial.
I wonder how many are so wrapped up in objection
that they cannot even read my posts?
Augustus
…
Replacing it with something better because it offends while also being a generic bit of mid 20th C tat with no artistic or historical merit.
As I said from the start: 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".
No idea where you got that nonsense from. You seem to be imagining things again based on your presumptions rather than reading what was written.
I don't remotely think you have a "hidden agenda", just a poor argument for keeping crap modern statues.
Never mind.
Perhaps it's not YOUR point. I assure you it is A point.
I'm a history buff. You constantly seem to be suggesting that confederate statues keep history alive, educational and uncomfortable.
Humbly, I would suggest that there are not enough Americans who realise the majority of the statues in question were built after the war...many long after the war...and were just part of a concerted effort by the UDC to influence 'history' and skew it towards a Lost Cause narrative. Indeed, they specifically denied the role of slavery as a cause until 2015, and key figures such as Mildred Lewis Rutherford quite deliberately did her level best to subvert historical records, and promote falsifiable views of the war.
(Try pages 6 and 7, but her entire 1852 address is here...
Address delivered by Miss Mildred Lewis Rutherford ... historian general : Rutherford, Mildred Lewis, 1852- [from old catalog] : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive)
The main source of uncomfortableness this all caused is not aimed, as it should be, at the horror of Civil War, nor at the 'lessons learnt'. Many of the statues were placed quite deliberately to glorify the efforts of the Confederacy, to deny it was an act of secession or rebellion at all, and to promote a false narrative.
I have no issue, believe it or not, with reminders of the Confederacy per se. But...as you yourself have suggested...these should be tied to actual history, be educational, and promote a level of uncomfortableness...or at least reflection.
Last edited: