One less confederate monument to vandalize...

bytewizard said:
The Southern Poverty Law Center has declared 3 of America's largest Army bases Confederate monuments "with the potential to unleash more turmoil and bloodshed" if activists don't "take down" the Army Bases. Fort Hood, Fort Bragg and Fort Benning are the 3 bases. "It's time to take them down."
Click to expand...

What you actually mean is, they've said it's time to change the names.
 
Upchurch said:
*cough*

You're mocking people who point out racist things by call out random things as racist. Thus, a reductio ad absurdum. It's a common tactic.
Click to expand...
It's identical to the rhetorical tactic of bringing statues/memorials of Washington, Jefferson, etc. into the conversation.

"I can call anything racist, so obviously nothing is."
or
"What's the point of talking about (or dealing with) this racist thing if we're not going to talk about this other racist thing?"

And, guess what? The Dukes of Hazzard is very offensive to anyone who finds tributes to Robert E. Lee and the Confederacy inappropriate. The fact that a large audience found it acceptable is an indictment of the audience, not a justification for the show.
 
Checkmite said:
What you actually mean is, they've said it's time to change the names.
Click to expand...
The bases are included in a list of 1500 "Confederate monuments" the SPLC wants taken down. There is no mention of renaming them on their website. Only "More than 1,500 Confederate monuments stand in communities like Charlottesville with the potential to unleash more turmoil and bloodshed. It's time to take them down."
 
Babbylonian said:
It's identical to the rhetorical tactic of bringing statues/memorials of Washington, Jefferson, etc. into the conversation.

"I can call anything racist, so obviously nothing is."
or
"What's the point of talking about (or dealing with) this racist thing if we're not going to talk about this other racist thing?"
Click to expand...

^This.

Babbylonian said:
And, guess what? The Dukes of Hazzard is very offensive to anyone who finds tributes to Robert E. Lee and the Confederacy inappropriate. The fact that a large audience found it acceptable is an indictment of the audience, not a justification for the show.
Click to expand...

^Not this.
 
Prometheus said:
^Not this.
Click to expand...
To be clear, I loved the Duke boys when I was a little kid (it premiered when I was 6). But driving around in a heroic vehicle with a Confederate flag on it called the General Lee? It's *********** gross, and I found it intolerable as I learned about history.
 
bytewizard said:
The bases are included in a list of 1500 "Confederate monuments" the SPLC wants taken down. There is no mention of renaming them on their website. Only "More than 1,500 Confederate monuments stand in communities like Charlottesville with the potential to unleash more turmoil and bloodshed. It's time to take them down."
Click to expand...
There's also no mention of the bases in the quoted article, and the "take down" is explicitly in relation to monuments, so it's more than a small distortion to treat it as a call to arms to "take down" Fort Bragg. Do you also read this as a call to "take down" roads (also among the 1503 confederate symbols on public land the SPLC identified)? Does that even make sense?

This is just...so...desperate. If you can't make a case for retaining the monuments, hey, you can at least try to portray those who think these relics of a century-long campaign of propaganda, revisionism and intimidation should come down as bomb-throwing radicals.
 
Babbylonian said:
To be clear, I loved the Duke boys when I was a little kid (it premiered when I was 6). But driving around in a heroic vehicle with a Confederate flag on it called the General Lee? It's *********** gross, and I found it intolerable as I learned about history.
Click to expand...

Well, that seems reasonable to me. I just never considered the flag or the car's name to be an integral part of the show.
 
Prometheus said:
Well, that seems reasonable to me. I just never considered the flag or the car's name to be an integral part of the show.
Click to expand...
The car was featured heavily in every episode, was beloved by the two main characters, and was key to almost every stunt. Without the car there would have been no show, or at least not a popular one...though it could have worked with a similarly distinctive but less objectionable paint job.
 
bytewizard said:
The bases are included in a list of 1500 "Confederate monuments" the SPLC wants taken down. There is no mention of renaming them on their website. Only "More than 1,500 Confederate monuments stand in communities like Charlottesville with the potential to unleash more turmoil and bloodshed. It's time to take them down."
Click to expand...

A military base isn't an object on a pedestal that can physically be "taken down"; I hope you understand that's obvious enough to go without having to be specially pointed out. The way you fix the problem of a military base whose name is a memorial to soldiers of white supremacy is by changing the name.
 
Babbylonian said:
The car was featured heavily in every episode, was beloved by the two main characters, and was key to almost every stunt. Without the car there would have been no show, or at least not a popular one...though it could have worked with a similarly distinctive but less objectionable paint job.
Click to expand...

This is what I mean. The car, and the boys' relationship with it are integral, but the name and paint job are not. IRC no rationale for those particulars are ever given in any episode, so they could easily be replaced without affecting the show.
 
Prometheus said:
This is what I mean. The car, and the boys' relationship with it are integral, but the name and paint job are not. IRC no rationale for those particulars are ever given in any episode, so they could easily be replaced without affecting the show.
Click to expand...
Yes. My previous reply was quite unnecessary. :)
 
Babbylonian said:
The Dukes of Hazzard is very offensive to anyone who finds tributes to Robert E. Lee and the Confederacy inappropriate. The fact that a large audience found it acceptable is an indictment of the audience, not a justification for the show.
Click to expand...

Lol. Breaking Bad is very offensive to anyone who finds tributes to organized crime, violence, and meth dealing inappropriate. The fact that a large audience found it acceptable is an indictment of the audience, not a justification for the show.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Lol. Breaking Bad is very offensive to anyone who finds tributes to organized crime, violence, and meth dealing inappropriate. The fact that a large audience found it acceptable is an indictment of the audience, not a justification for the show.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

Seriously, you need to find a new mode of argument. You're wearing out your terrible comparisons. Walter White was not a "good old boy, never meanin' no harm."
 
Babbylonian said:
:rolleyes:

Seriously, you need to find a new mode of argument. You're wearing out your terrible comparisons. Walter White was not a "good old boy, never meanin' no harm."
Click to expand...

Can we add strawman to that as well? EC once chided me in this thread to stop using words that put the lie to the argument s/he was trying to accuse me of making.
 
quadraginta said:
Very well written.

Thank you for the link.
Click to expand...

"How could a patriot be confused with a traitor? How can leading a war to bring forth a new country be confused with leading a rebellion to tear it in two?"

I presume she means the founding fathers were traitors, the pro-British colonialists patriots? And that the Civil War was fought to 'bring forth a new country' (the CSA), and the War of Independence 'a rebellion to tear [the Empire] in two'? Or maybe she's just putting her own spin on things and calling it 'the facts'?
 
Ian Osborne said:
"How could a patriot be confused with a traitor? How can leading a war to bring forth a new country be confused with leading a rebellion to tear it in two?"

I presume she means the founding fathers were traitors, the pro-British colonialists patriots? And that the Civil War was fought to 'bring forth a new country' (the CSA), and the War of Independence 'a rebellion to tear [the Empire] in two'? Or maybe she's just putting her own spin on things and calling it 'the facts'?
Click to expand...

Your presumption is so far off base I can't fathom how you got there, try re-reading the whole article. In case you genuinely can't accurately parse the sentence structure, I've highlighted the parts that make the intent crystal clear.
 
paulhutch said:
Your presumption is so far off base I can't fathom how you got there, try re-reading the whole article. In case you genuinely can't accurately parse the sentence structure, I've highlighted the parts that make the intent crystal clear.
Click to expand...

There is no difference between the two pieces in this case. Both the civil war and revolutionary war are bifurcations.
 
paulhutch said:
Your presumption is so far off base I can't fathom how you got there, try re-reading the whole article. In case you genuinely can't accurately parse the sentence structure, I've highlighted the parts that make the intent crystal clear.
Click to expand...

My presumption was sarcasm designed to show her comparison is actually spin.
 
Mike! said:
Her opinion is my opinion, move them, and place them in their historical context as a narrative to future generations.
Click to expand...

+1. As a reminder, the Forest Park Confederate memorial was, in fact, moved rather than destroyed. No history erased, but no glorifying the institution of slavery either. Win-win, in my book.
 
Upchurch said:
+1. As a reminder, the Forest Park Confederate memorial was, in fact, moved rather than destroyed. No history erased, but no glorifying the institution of slavery either. Win-win, in my book.
Click to expand...

It is a long thread. Did we ever resolve why we shouldn't glorify the institution of slavery?
 
Upchurch said:
+1. As a reminder, the Forest Park Confederate memorial was, in fact, moved rather than destroyed. No history erased, but no glorifying the institution of slavery either. Win-win, in my book.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but I don't think we should grant the premise that even the destruction of the statues/memorials would erase the history represented by them. Changing history books - for example in any way deemphasizing the role of slavery in causing the Civil War - is the kind of thing that "erases" history.
 
Upchurch said:
+1. As a reminder, the Forest Park Confederate memorial was, in fact, moved rather than destroyed. No history erased, but no glorifying the institution of slavery either. Win-win, in my book.
Click to expand...

I'll expand on my thinking. Display them in a confined area, a park like setting, but add a new historical marker to each, stating where it was, when it was erected, by whom, and what the social climate was at that time. That sort of historical context would hopefully serve to de-glorify what they were originally intended to represent, while preserving the history of each one. Sort of a "Park of Shame" if you will. Or, "Welcome to the island of Ill Purposed Monuments to the Confederacy".
And frankly, without putting them in any historical context of just what and who they represent, many are well crafted visual works of art, with the unquestionable exception of that statue Mumbles uses as an avatar. Blowing that thing up would be doing the world a favor.
I still think seeing that thing come to life and go on a rampage would make a great Twilight Zone episode.
 
Last edited:
Babbylonian said:
To be clear, I loved the Duke boys when I was a little kid (it premiered when I was 6). But driving around in a heroic vehicle with a Confederate flag on it called the General Lee? It's *********** gross, and I found it intolerable as I learned about history.
Click to expand...

Do you remember the show very well?

Just finished a rewatch a little bit ago, and it seems like you are missing something that is explained often in the show. I'm not going to say what it is to illustrate a point.

This "I don't watch it but I'm angry" line of reasoning in regards to media needs to stop. Out of context any media will have material that can be considered offensive. While while one cannot be expected to watch every show and film, one can also avoid jumping on a bandwagon if they do not have context.

If the Duke boys were racist and presented as hero's due to these beliefs I would agree its wrong, but having characters that have silly views on displaying a flag, is a far cry from an issue.
 
sadhatter said:
Do you remember the show very well?

Just finished a rewatch a little bit ago, and it seems like you are missing something that is explained often in the show. I'm not going to say what it is to illustrate a point.

This "I don't watch it but I'm angry" line of reasoning in regards to media needs to stop. Out of context any media will have material that can be considered offensive. While while one cannot be expected to watch every show and film, one can also avoid jumping on a bandwagon if they do not have context.

If the Duke boys were racist and presented as hero's due to these beliefs I would agree its wrong, but having characters that have silly views on displaying a flag, is a far cry from an issue.
Click to expand...
That's a long way around to say "You're wrong but I'm not going to explain why I think so, thus making it impossible for you to respond."
 
Babbylonian said:
:rolleyes:

Seriously, you need to find a new mode of argument. You're wearing out your terrible comparisons. Walter White was not a "good old boy, never meanin' no harm."
Click to expand...

What the heck does that have to do with anything? It's still potentially offensive to a bunch of people. That something might offend someone else isn't very good reason to censor it.
 
Emily's Cat said:
What the heck does that have to do with anything? It's still potentially offensive to a bunch of people. That something might offend someone else isn't very good reason to censor it.
Click to expand...
Hey, Upchurch! There's the strawman!

Hint: I never suggested censoring it.
 
Babbylonian said:
That's a long way around to say "You're wrong but I'm not going to explain why I think so, thus making it impossible for you to respond."
Click to expand...

Right? I haven't watched that show in what, 30 years? I don't remember much beyond Catherine Bach's shorts.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Oh jesus christ. What the hell were you suggesting then?
Click to expand...
I was suggesting that the imagery most prominently associated with that television show is *********** gross.

You see, I actually don't think that everything I find offensive needs to be eliminated from the planet. I don't recall, for example, suggesting that people should be encouraged to destroy confederate memorials on their own hook. It's a decision that should be made by the owners of the property on which those memorials are placed, which are often governments (composed of "the people").

In the case of this particular thread drift, I would happily encourage people to leave that particular TV show in the ignoble past to which it belongs, or at least be aware of why its most prominent imagery is problematic.

In the meantime, yeah, it does offend me (given the Confederacy was constituted specifically to do evil to human beings) and I probably wouldn't want to watch a television network that decides to broadcast it.

None of this constitutes a call for censorship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom