International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Social Issues & Current Events (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   One less confederate monument to vandalize... (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=321074)

bignickel 30th June 2017 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11903503)
Do you feel that your dislike of it is sufficient to override anybody else's view who may value that insight to history?

That insight into history is what museums are for.

Other things visitors can view can be the Confederate Battle Flag (which represents "Southern heritage" somehow...), info on Jim Crow laws, pictures of firehoses and dogs being turned on protesters... etc.

I certainly think that kind of museum can be a tremendous help in educating the future public, certainly to let them know how ridiculous a notion of "sacred principles to maintain and rights to defend" our former enemy thought of.

Checkmite 30th June 2017 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11903503)
Do you feel that your dislike of it is sufficient to override anybody else's view who may value that insight to history?

These monuments weren't put up to provide "insight to history"; they were put up to shoehorn and perpetually enforce a revisionist narrative of it.

Indeed the only "insight" these memorials really have to offer us is not to the people they were built to honor, but rather the people who built them. But as I've explained elsewhere, they serve even that function better in a museum.

Emily's Cat 30th June 2017 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spindrift (Post 11903510)
Are there a lot of statues of King George II that were put up after the American Revolution saying what a great guy he was? Or George III for that matter.

It's not a matter of depicting the losers. It's a matter of attempting to re-write history and glorify those who committed treason.

So no monuments to the protesters in Tienanmen square then?

One man's traitor is another man's revolutionary. The only thing that makes the confederate states "traitors" is that they lost. Had they won, they'd have been revolutionaries who seceded from the union.

If it's re-writing history and glorifying treason to commemorate those soldiers, it's similarly re-writing history and glorifying treason to commemorate any failed rebellion. Yet there are plenty of failed rebellions that are still commemorated for any number of reasons.

Either way, it's still history. And it's not being rewritten by leaving those monuments as they stand - it's being rewritten by removing any reference to the confederate side of the civil war.

uke2se 30th June 2017 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11903485)
Should we destroy any monuments to Napoleon? Or Alexander the Great?

Think the French and the Greeks would mind if you clomped on in there and started busting up their statues. Worry about your own embarrassing history.

uke2se 30th June 2017 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11903562)
So no monuments to the protesters in Tienanmen square then?

Are there any in China?

If not, feel free to set one up in your home town.

wareyin 30th June 2017 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11903562)
So no monuments to the protesters in Tienanmen square then?

One man's traitor is another man's revolutionary. The only thing that makes the confederate states "traitors" is that they lost. Had they won, they'd have been revolutionaries who seceded from the union.

If it's re-writing history and glorifying treason to commemorate those soldiers, it's similarly re-writing history and glorifying treason to commemorate any failed rebellion. Yet there are plenty of failed rebellions that are still commemorated for any number of reasons.

Either way, it's still history. And it's not being rewritten by leaving those monuments as they stand - it's being rewritten by removing any reference to the confederate side of the civil war.

You know, I see right wing media continuously saying how this is rewriting history, or erasing the Confederate side, but as someone living in Atlanta, they aren't rewriting anything, or removing references to the Confederates. They are correcting the attempted rewriting of history, known as whitewashing. They removing monuments glorifying the Confederacy or prominent Confederates, and that's a very different thing than Fox news is telling folks.

Go to Kennesaw Battlefield. Go to Gettysburg. No one is removing any monuments there, or erasing any mention of the south.

JoeMorgue 30th June 2017 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian Osborne (Post 11903349)
If it was treasonous for the ten states to secede from the union, why was it acceptable for the thirteen colonies to secede from the empire?

I'd wager there aren't too many monuments to the American Revolution in Great Britain and if there are they are free to tear them down.

autumn1971 30th June 2017 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11903485)
Should we destroy any monuments to Napoleon? Or Alexander the Great? Or to any other historical event that is no longer considered acceptable?

There's nothing inherently racist about that statue. The civil war happened. It was a big divide in the country. If the memorials were actually depicting something offensive, or were expressing a racist sentiment, I would understand. But right now, you're pretty much saying that anything and everything that could in any way be associated with the losing side in the civil war should be destroyed because it's somehow innately offensive. And I find that absurd.

Victor Hugo wrote specifically about such monument that we respect and admire the past only because it agrees to remain dead.

When the Southern Pride folks agree to this I will honor their little monuments.

ddt 30th June 2017 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11903485)
Should we destroy any monuments to Napoleon? Or Alexander the Great? Or to any other historical event that is no longer considered acceptable?

I didn't know either of them is "no longer considered acceptable". There's a lot you can criticize Napoleon for, but he also exported the fruits of the French Revolution to most of continental Europe. We owe him the meter and the kilogram, the civil code and the penal code, to name a few. Alexander exported Greek culture, science and philosophy to the Middle East. We owe him (specifically, his general Ptolemy I) the Library of Alexandria.

There's absolutely no reason why your country or mine would put up a statue for either of them, but as a human being, I would not feel offended seeing one in France resp. Greece. Actually, my country's first king was Napoleon's brother Louis, and he's sort-a whitewashed out of our history, though he did his best to serve his (assigned) country to the best of his abilities.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11903485)
There's nothing inherently racist about that statue. The civil war happened. It was a big divide in the country.

Yes, it is racist. It celebrates a racist cause. The only raison d'Ítre of the Confederacy was the right (constitutionally enshrined) to keep slaves and the view that blacks were inferior human beings. And in a sense, the Civil War continues as long as those monuments are there on public land.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11903491)
Whether you agree with the ideals of the soldiers involved in that war or not, this is the purposeful destruction of history. I don't see this as any better than the burning of the Library of Alexandria. Our descendants should be able to view our history as it was, not with some saccharine shine of political correctness being rewritten to appease some multi-generational guilt.

The burning of the Library of Alexandria destroyed knowledge. Tearing down a statue does not. There are other and better ways to learn about the evils of the Southern racist bigots than to glorify them with a public monument.

Spindrift 30th June 2017 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11903562)
So no monuments to the protesters in Tienanmen square then?

In China? I doubt it.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11903562)
One man's traitor is another man's revolutionary. The only thing that makes the confederate states "traitors" is that they lost. Had they won, they'd have been revolutionaries who seceded from the union.

If they won, they would have their own country for their monuments. They lost trying to destroy this country.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11903562)
If it's re-writing history and glorifying treason to commemorate those soldiers, it's similarly re-writing history and glorifying treason to commemorate any failed rebellion.

If the glorification for false reason. The war was started by the South to preserve slavery, not the glorious "lost cause" of fiction.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11903562)
Yet there are plenty of failed rebellions that are still commemorated for any number of reasons.

A rebellion that cost the lives of hundreds of thousands and was started for the reason of preserving slavery?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11903562)
Either way, it's still history. And it's not being rewritten by leaving those monuments as they stand - it's being rewritten by removing any reference to the confederate side of the civil war.

Who's removing any reference to the confederate side? Go to any number of museums. Read any number of books.

pgwenthold 30th June 2017 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian Osborne (Post 11903349)
If it was treasonous for the ten states to secede from the union, why was it acceptable for the thirteen colonies to secede from the empire? Destroy all memorials to the American Revolution, and its (slave-owning) founding fathers.

It certainly WAS treasonous ... to England.

How many monuments to the Colonials are there in England?

JoeMorgue 30th June 2017 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11903562)
So no monuments to the protesters in Tienanmen square then?

*Holds out one palm* Peaceful student protesters killed by the thousands seeking democratic reform, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech.

*Holds out the other palm* An armed treasonous uprising to prevent the removal of the vital "state right" to own other human beings as chattel based on the color of their skin.

Yeah that's a fair comparison.

bruto 30th June 2017 06:05 PM

I would add that, although many of our other heroes are indeed tainted by the sins of their times and sins of their own, a monument to the Confederacy has a somewhat different status, because when it comes down to it, however fine many of the participants may have been, the Confederacy itself existed for only one real purpose, and that was the perpetuation of slavery.

I would also remind one that, in this case at least, the proposals I've seen are not that the monument be destroyed, but that it be removed from what many would consider its inappropriately prideful location. There's a difference there.

I tend to agree that it's a mistake to re-edit history, to destroy things we no longer like, or to pretend things did not happen as they did. But we do get to change our opinions, our priorities, our heroes and our symbols. How much of the evil and misfortune in the world comes from saving face and denying change. We ought to be able to say "once I thought one way, but now I think otherwise." Grow up.

Craig4 1st July 2017 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11903485)
Should we destroy any monuments to Napoleon? Or Alexander the Great? Or to any other historical event that is no longer considered acceptable?

There's nothing inherently racist about that statue. The civil war happened. It was a big divide in the country. If the memorials were actually depicting something offensive, or were expressing a racist sentiment, I would understand. But right now, you're pretty much saying that anything and everything that could in any way be associated with the losing side in the civil war should be destroyed because it's somehow innately offensive. And I find that absurd.

There's a difference between remembering our history and memorializing it. These statues were intended to honor those statues are intended to honor Confederate soldiers. We can remember the crime of the Civil War without celebrating the criminals.

Cainkane1 1st July 2017 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike! (Post 11900894)
The horribly offencive confederate monument in St. Louis' Forest Park (That most people, up until recently, didn't even know was there.) will be removed from Forest Park by Friday. The city decided to let the rightful owners move and store it rather than fight out the city's right to remove and store it in court.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/g...c517b4f9f.html

Is history that offensive to you? If the monuments are removed does that mean it didn't happen? The Civil War happened and misguided men fought to preserve slavery. Be glad they lost. Most of the Confederate soldiers were forced to fight in that war and I personally consider them victims. Most of them were non-slave owners who could barely feed their families.

CaptainHowdy 1st July 2017 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Border Reiver (Post 11903333)
Tell you what, you and those who feel the South's ideals of owning other humans as property win the next civil war and you can do just that after putting your precious Confederate monuments to losers back up.

Oh, I see...if the South had won, slavery would be OK and statues of slave state heroes like Washington and Jefferson could remain in place? You're not very good at this, are you?

CaptainHowdy 1st July 2017 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spindrift (Post 11903343)
I think we draw the line at treason. Don't commit treason and you can have a monument. Or if you're going to commit treason, win don't lose.

And we have another vote for might makes right!

Craig4 1st July 2017 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy (Post 11904348)
And we have another vote for might makes right!

So evil shouldn't be opposed with force?

Upchurch 1st July 2017 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig4 (Post 11904205)
There's a difference between remembering our history and memorializing it. These statues were intended to honor those statues are intended to honor Confederate soldiers. We can remember the crime of the Civil War without celebrating the criminals.

I think there is a disconnect here.

This memorial neither remembers history nor memorialized any real occurrence. It is a fiction presented as history. It is, perhaps, worth saving only as a historic artifact of the attempt.

JoeMorgue 1st July 2017 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy (Post 11904348)
And we have another vote for might makes right!

So the only reason owning other human beings is wrong is because the stronger side so?

The Union winning the Civil War was a good thing, everyone gets that right?

fuelair 1st July 2017 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Resume (Post 11901061)

I am pretty sure the Spirit of the Confederacy was small batch woodsy distilled whiskey.

fuelair 1st July 2017 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgwenthold (Post 11903808)
It certainly WAS treasonous ... to England.

How many monuments to the Colonials are there in England?

True!!!

fuelair 1st July 2017 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy (Post 11904348)
And we have another vote for might makes right!

No, but it does get to make the decisions!

fuelair 1st July 2017 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig4 (Post 11904205)
There's a difference between remembering our history and memorializing it. These statues were intended to honor those statues are intended to honor Confederate soldiers. We can remember the crime of the Civil War without celebrating the criminals.

The part I greened is duplicated right after the greening stops! That is why I greened it!!! Unfortunately I do the same thing from time to time (or, more precisely. a nudge or adjustment moves the location of the typing to where it should not be!)........

kookbreaker 1st July 2017 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgwenthold (Post 11903808)
It certainly WAS treasonous ... to England.

How many monuments to the Colonials are there in England?

Well, ummm...

https://www.guidelondon.org.uk/blog/...idents-london/

TragicMonkey 1st July 2017 07:50 PM

I think what's needed is a monument to monuments, and to the spirit of monuments. And, to ensure an equal voice to opposing viewpoints, there should also be a monument to the spirit of removing monuments. And a third monument to commemorate the other two monuments. Only by multiplicity into absurdity can real healing be achieved.

Foolmewunz 1st July 2017 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat (Post 11903491)
Whether you agree with the ideals of the soldiers involved in that war or not, this is the purposeful destruction of history. I don't see this as any better than the burning of the Library of Alexandria. Our descendants should be able to view our history as it was, not with some saccharine shine of political correctness being rewritten to appease some multi-generational guilt.

Look, I'll give you one or the other....

A) I can call them deplorables
B) I can destroy their misguided memorials and monuments to being deplorables

This isn't "history". Other than "The History of the Kind of **** People Put Up in the Jim Crow Era".

Babbylonian 1st July 2017 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz (Post 11904853)
Look, I'll give you one or the other....

A) I can call them deplorables
B) I can destroy their misguided memorials and monuments to being deplorables

This isn't "history". Other than "The History of the Kind of **** People Put Up in the Jim Crow Era".

Remember when it was cool to pretend that black people had equal rights while taking every opportunity to show that they'd never really be considered equal? I'm so wistful.

TragicMonkey 1st July 2017 08:25 PM

The more I think of it, the more appealing I find the idea of a monument to iconoclasm. We should really take up a collection and make that happen.

bruto 1st July 2017 10:11 PM

I think in this day and age it ought to be possible to create virtual monuments. You could get a set of virtual reality glasses and dial in the silliness you want memorialized, and there it will be, just for you. The nambypamby social justice warriors will walk by unaware of why you are smiling as you glory in the gore of martyrs, winning today the battles that were lost yesterday.

AS for TM's monument to iconoclasm, that has some merit too. Jean Tinguely got halfway there designing sculptures that destroy themselves. The proper monument to icononclasm will better this by not existing, and one day, the ideal will occur, so perfect in realization that it is immediately forgotten.

CaptainHowdy 2nd July 2017 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig4 (Post 11904362)
So evil shouldn't be opposed with force?

Nobody said it should.

Hlafordlaes 2nd July 2017 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigred (Post 11901399)
Forget the knife, it'd take a chainsaw to cut through the self-righteous stupidity in this thread. :rolleyes:

So true. Only good ole butt cracks in low trou mode know how to vandalize right proper. Negotiating the removal of an ode to idiocy using what, laws and courts? Ha! Limp libdem nonsense.

applecorped 2nd July 2017 06:11 AM

Destruction in the name of righteousness!

TragicMonkey 2nd July 2017 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 11904908)
AS for TM's monument to iconoclasm, that has some merit too. Jean Tinguely got halfway there designing sculptures that destroy themselves. The proper monument to icononclasm will better this by not existing, and one day, the ideal will occur, so perfect in realization that it is immediately forgotten.

Actually, since we're thinking of a monument to iconoclasm, the idea exists. Therefore in a sense the universe is packed to the brim with nonexistent monuments to iconoclasm. The only places that don't have nonexistent monuments to iconoclasm are in fact the spaces occupied by other monuments. The cosmos is divided into two: space occupied by monuments, and spaces not-occupied by not-monuments to iconoclasm. The latter space is vastly larger than the former, so I'm counting that as a win for me. Hooray!

GlennB 2nd July 2017 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey (Post 11904862)
The more I think of it, the more appealing I find the idea of a monument to iconoclasm. We should really take up a collection and make that happen.

Pile up a stack of chunks of previously smashed monuments. Cheap!

In fact you'd probably win a prize for modern art. Profit!

JoeMorgue 2nd July 2017 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy (Post 11905009)
Nobody said it should.

Then what exactly are you saying because frankly I'm lost.

What exactly is the problem?

This is just one of those things I can't believe there are actually people on the other side of it.

When you lose the war you were fighting to keep doing a terrible thing you don't get to have monuments to it. What's the flippin' mystery?

Not every underdog that fights to the bitter end for their lost cause is on the right side of history.

"History is written by the winners" doesn't mean the losers were always right.

Resume 2nd July 2017 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by applecorped (Post 11905079)
Destruction in the name of righteousness!

What destruction exactly? The thing is merely being moved to another location where the confederacy fetishists may worship it.

fuelair 2nd July 2017 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeBentley (Post 11905101)
Then what exactly are you saying because frankly I'm lost.

What exactly is the problem?

This is just one of those things I can't believe there are actually people on the other side of it.

When you lose the war you were fighting to keep doing a terrible thing you don't get to have monuments to it. What's the flippin' mystery?

Not every underdog that fights to the bitter end for their lost cause is on the right side of history.

"History is written by the winners" doesn't mean the losers were always right.

Or even ever right!!!!!!!!

bruto 2nd July 2017 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GlennB (Post 11905099)
Pile up a stack of chunks of previously smashed monuments. Cheap!

In fact you'd probably win a prize for modern art. Profit!

But as soon as you put it up, consistency demands that you knock it down!

JoeMorgue 2nd July 2017 03:07 PM

Alright we really need to figure out exactly where the disconnect here is.

Here are some statement of facts. Let me know where exactly I lose you.

1. The Civil War was about slavery.
2. The Confederate States were treasonous.
3. The Confederate States lost the war.
4. The Confederate States losing the war was a good thing.
5. Having monuments in place to celebrate the losing side of a war makes no sense.

Now let me pre-counter the standard "Confederate Cause" apologetics.

1. "Well technically the Civil War wasn't about sla..." let me me just stop you right there. Yes. Yes it was. Completely and totally. All the one stepped removed nonsense doublespeak is just historical revisionism.
2. "Well the North was racist too!" Okay? And?
3. "But it's history!" No. A monument is not history. A museum is history. A historical placard is history. A monument is a celebration of something.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:53 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.