Do You Approve Of Destroying Confederate Monuments?

[QuestioningMind]

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.

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

You think we should preserve every single monument that humans have ever constructed? What an unrealistic goal. We already have several Confederate statues in museums, we certainly don't need to preserve all of them. And can you imagine what Germany would be like if they'd been forced to preserve all of the monuments to Nazism that were erected?

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

You say no historical merit...I disagree.
I see artistry as irrelevant.

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".

"Case by case" would mean that you'd preserve
some old memorials to historical malefactors.
This seems to be partial detente.
As for your simplistic "PersonX bad", I've been
advocating something more informative. Try to
think with more imagination about educating.

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 read what you post.
"... if education was the goal..."
There has been no "if" in any of my posts.
If you really don't intend a snide tone, I
suggest proofreading your posts carefully.

 

[Revoltingest]

Perhaps it's not YOUR point. I assure you it is A point.

Pointy.

I'm a history buff. You constantly seem to be suggesting that confederate statues keep history alive, educational and uncomfortable.

Only "suggesting"?
I've been clearly advocating for exactly that.

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.

That be interesting info to provide
along with the offensive memorial, eh.

(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.

That heinous glorification should be addressed
right at the offending memorial, eh.

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.

Sounds like you're on board.

 

[Revoltingest]

You think we should preserve every single monument that humans have ever constructed?

Calm down. Take a breath. Read carefully.
I'm not micro-managing every memorial ever erected.
I advocate enhancing displays with modern interpretations.

What an unrealistic goal. We already have several Confederate statues in museums, we certainly don't need to preserve all of them.

You argue against a claim of your own creation.
It smells of straw.

And can you imagine what Germany would be like if they'd been forced to preserve all of the monuments to Nazism that were erected?

Do you think Germany is wrong to preserve
the Auschwitz death camp, & even open it to
the public? Talk about offensive.
Clearly, it doesn't honor, venerate, or glorify this
past. Nor does it advocate its return to our era.
Krakow Activities - 1481 Suggested Activities | Visit A City

 

[Revoltingest]

For the record....
I urge preserving these memorials to evil people
because they should be teaching tools. Don't
sanitize uncomfortable history. Illuminate them
with info that educates people about the horrors.

I loathe the Confederacy.
I oppose slavery.
I have no hidden agenda.

 

[Augustus]

"Case by case" would mean that you'd preserve
some old memorials to historical malefactors.
This seems to be partial detente.
As for your simplistic "PersonX bad", I've been
advocating something more informative. Try to
think with more imagination about educating.

It's not a "partial detente" it's what I said in my first post and have repeated ever since. It was never simply "they are offensive", but "they are offensive and without any other merit".

Maybe you made an incorrect assumption somewhere along the lines which caused you to misunderstand everything after that.

My 1st post:

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.

I read what you post.
"... if education was the goal..."
There has been no "if" in any of my posts.
If you really don't intend a snide tone, I
suggest proofreading your posts carefully.

It was a general argument.

As I said repeatedly, there is no artistic merit or historical merit to mass produced, generic mid-20th C Confederate kitsch.

Given that, the only other logical reason I can see to keep them if they are not wanted by the community is if they serve some cultural/educational purpose. I was explaining why that line of argument also fails.

My whole argument is about evaluating the merits of statues, rather than insisting on some one size fits all approach.

An actual civil war era statue may indeed have historical merit that means it should be kept, with suitable contextualisation.

Next time, just ask if you ask unsure, rather than making up some imaginary slurs.

 

[Revoltingest]

Next time, just ask if you ask unsure, rather than making up some imaginary slurs.

Next time read your own posts to see if
they're more snide than you really want.

 

[Augustus]

Next time read your own posts to see if
they're more snide than you really want.

Not my fault you repeatedly read in stuff that isn't there because you didn't read my 1st post properly, made a load of false assumptions then got pretty much everything wrong after that.

Took 4 attempts for you to even identify what you termed a 'partial detente'

 

[Revoltingest]

Not my fault...

Your title suits you.

 

[Ashoka]

Should people be unaware that such hate once existed?

Nah, you could just write about it. No need for statues.

 

[Windwalker]

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.

I'm sorry. You seem completely unaware that the racist branch of the Southern Democrats, the "Dixiecrat", became the modern Republican party when Strom Thurmond became a Republican. In other words, Democratic of the past, is the Republican party of today.

So as you are condemning the southern democrats, you are in reality condemning the Republican party, who are in fact, quite a lot like the Taliban for that very reason.

How the ‘Party of Lincoln’ Won Over the Once Democratic South

Democratic defectors, known as the “Dixiecrats,” started a switch to the Republican party in a movement that was later fueled by a so-called "Southern strategy."​

Dixiecrat - Wikipedia

 

[Windwalker]

That's not really the point. It's about preserving
historic memorials, & changing the message
when it suits us,

Putting the memorials up in the first place, were about changing the message. They were propaganda statues, glorifying the myth of the "Lost Cause", trying to turn shame into a matter of pride. They have stood to represent the racist south sting of defeat in losing their war to preserve slavery.

They aren't actually historical monuments, anymore than putting up the monuments of the 10 Commandments at government buildings has been about preserving the history of Moses. Both are about promoting some mythology that symbolizes ones idealized self-identity.

Speaking of the "Lost Cause", I'd say that sums up your argument pretty well.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Why such a limited view.

Because I see defenses for these statues as generally rooted in white supremacy, nostalgia for history that is steeped in white supremacy, or in honoring the figures they represent as heroes when the impacts of their actions are still negatively felt today.

That's not to say that everyone defending them is a white supremacist, but when I look at the reactions of removing a statue or anything else related to trying to make amends for the mistakes of the past, I can't help but limit my view to the folks carrying torches and putting themselves front and center of the debate:

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.

As a museum artifact, it certainly would change the context, and I would support that idea given the correct placement and how it is presented.

Thing is, statues are often there to honor or propagandize ideas. Especially Confederate statues.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nah, you could just write about it. No need for statues.

But would people read.
History books aren't popular.
Should Auschwitz be torn down, with only
a written record surviving? And pictures.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Whether or not I approve of taking down monuments to past power structures, religious or political, they're going to get done. We as Americans have been toppling statues to foreign enemies as long as we've been a country, in both military actions and civil disobedience. So I'm not surprised when other countries do it to their perceived enemies.

Personally I think keeping monuments to people whose actions were objectively harmful to a group or groups of people for historical reasons is skim reasoning, as even if you actually read the plaque you'll get more information by reading any article or book on the subject. There's also been plenty of amazing artwork done commemorating such removals:

I don't particularly mourn confederate statues which were erected as mass produced, cheaply made long after the war to be visible warnings to black neighborhoods to stay in line. Nothing of value is lost there.

 

[Revoltingest]

Putting the memorials up in the first place, were about changing the message.

How does one change a memorial's message
when there's no memorial installed yet?

They were propaganda statues, glorifying the myth of the "Lost Cause", trying to turn shame into a matter of pride. They have stood to represent the racist south sting of defeat in losing their war to preserve slavery.

I don't argue that point. Indeed, it's an aspect of
history that adding to the memorial could address.
A correction or illumination it would be.

How is it that so many are missing this thread theme?

Speaking of the "Lost Cause", I'd say that sums up your argument pretty well.

Some agree with me. Others with you.
You shouldn't try so hard to insist that you have The Truth.
There are only opinions.

 

[Ashoka]

But would people read.
History books aren't popular.
Should Auschwitz be torn down, with only
a written record surviving? And pictures.

My question is, when does it stop being "remembering the bad history so we don't do it again" and become honoring? That's what I think statues do. They are walking a thin line between the two.

Then again...many churches in the middle ages had statues of Lucifer. Obviously, he wasn't honored, but it was a reminder not to become him.

So...intention is key I guess?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

But would people read.
History books aren't popular.
Should Auschwitz be torn down, with only
a written record surviving? And pictures.

You'll notice Auschwitz and the museum didn't keep the nazi flags and busts on celebrating the nazi party up. It's a somber experience focusing on the trials of the people who were victimized, not their perpetrators.

 

[Ashoka]

You'll notice Auschwitz didn't keep the nazi flags and busts on celebrating the nazi party up. It's a somber experience focusing on the trials of the people who were victimized, not their perpetrators.

That's very true. Why do we need statues of confederate soldiers unless we are specifically honoring them? There's one in our park that I wish the city would get rid of, but again, they won't, because this is a Bible belt state.

 

[Revoltingest]

zzzz

Because I see defenses for these statues as generally rooted in white supremacy, nostalgia for history that is steeped in white supremacy, or in honoring the figures they represent as heroes when the impacts of their actions are still negatively felt today.

I'll wager that white supremacists would chafe more
at statues with added exhibits about the horrors of
slavery, the Civil War, & lingering racism thereafter.