Confederate Flags and Statues Must be Removed

[blotsfan 2,112]

This was kinda tiptoed around in the other thread, so lets do this.

First of all, lets establish this: The civil war was about slavery. The confederacy was about slavery. They only fought about states rights in the sense of they wanted the right to keep slavery. Their constitution banned states from making any laws against slavery (article 1, second 9, item 4). This was a "country" founded on the belief that it was their right to enslave other people.

 

2) Statues are celebratory. This is a fact. You don't see people putting up statues to honor people they don't like. No one puts up Benedict Arnold statues, even though he was an important part of our history. One of the most iconic moments of the Iraq war was the removal of Saddam's statue. Its obvious why. It symbolically shows "we do not accept this anymore." No one has ever accused the Iraqis of erasing their history. Sports teams don't put statues of bad players. They just do it of the great ones. Having a statue of a confederate general is a celebration of the confederacy.

 

3) The confederate monuments were meant to be racist. Notice the spikes. The first one is about 50 years after it ended. This was when the "lost cause" of the confederacy really started to become a thing. Rather than admit that it was a really terrible part of the past, they tried to hide what the confederacy stood for in order for it to get mainstream acceptance. They built monuments of the confederacy to try to normalize it. Again, this was a country that's sole reason for being was to ensure the right of white people to enslave black people. The second spike? That's when the civil rights movement was becoming heated. It isn't hard to figure out whats going on there.

 

4) The commonly used confederate flag was never even the flag of their country. In fact, the current flag was pretty much forgotten until it became a symbol of opposing civil rights. This is because the flag stands for racism. There is a reason neo-nazis support it so heavily. In fact in Europe, where the display of the nazi flag is often illegal, the confederate flag is a common stand in.

 

 

Basically it is clear: when you support the statues of the confederacy, and when you support the flying of the confederate flag in the state houses, you are supporting keeping racist imagery. The racists want them flying high so they can say "see? this is our history." There is a reason they get so mad when the statues and flags are removed. After WW2, Germany did a massive purge of all things nazi. They removed the swastika from everything they could, sending a clear message of "this is not ok and this is not who we want to be." No one forgets that the nazis existed. Their place in history will never be forgotten. But they understand that having public displays makes it look like a part of life, rather than a shameful part of their past.

 

That was 70 years ago. The civil war was 150 years ago. We still haven't gotten to that place. It's time we do.

Edited August 13, 2017 by blotsfan

[Omerta+ 1,206]

No, no they shouldn't. The only part I can get on board with here is the confederate flag. Think about what your saying. You're saying to the victor goes the spoils, which is kind of irresponsible. I used this in the other thread, is that the retaliation for something like this is going to swing equally out of control the other way. What if a conservative city ripped down a MLK statue? What about one of George Washington? I mean those are two people who did a lot for America and our country, but that could be torn down if one party wins over another. Would you feel the same if Trump decided to rip down the MLK statue in DC ?

 

We need to stop running from our past and confront it. We think tearing down a statue will make things hunky dory, but it wont. Not once during any of this has people addressed anything meaningful that will enact change. What will pulling that statue down do? Make it like it never happened? Actually, it will probably just create a larger problem by creating a more anti-this/that sentiment. This kind of thing never goes well because now you make them a martyr.

[BwareDWare94 723]

To say that a flag or a statue only represents one thing is asinine and reactionary. History is history. You can't slap some Simple Green on it and wipe it away. People associate many other things to the Confederate Flag. A statue of a Confederate General does not represent only slavery. That was a person, not simply a stroke of paint in the canvas of racism and slavery.

[Cherry 1,302]

While I agree with Bware's sentiment that it's wrong to paint history as one color only, I have no problem with the removal of statues and flags as long as the community comes together and agrees to do so on a local level. I don't agree with federal action to remove Confederate symbols because again it's not just a representative of slavery, it's a representative of a town history. Look at the Shiloh Confederate Monument for example.

Edited August 13, 2017 by Chernobyl426

[blotsfan 2,112]

No, no they shouldn't. The only part I can get on board with here is the confederate flag. Think about what your saying. You're saying to the victor goes the spoils, which is kind of irresponsible. I used this in the other thread, is that the retaliation for something like this is going to swing equally out of control the other way. What if a conservative city ripped down a MLK statue? What about one of George Washington? I mean those are two people who did a lot for America and our country, but that could be torn down if one party wins over another. Would you feel the same if Trump decided to rip down the MLK statue in DC ?

 

We need to stop running from our past and confront it. We think tearing down a statue will make things hunky dory, but it wont. Not once during any of this has people addressed anything meaningful that will enact change. What will pulling that statue down do? Make it like it never happened? Actually, it will probably just create a larger problem by creating a more anti-this/that sentiment. This kind of thing never goes well because now you make them a martyr.

 

MLK's goal was for black people to have equal rights. The confederacy's goal was to ensure that they were allowed to own black people as property, and any confederate general was fighting for that. That's such a false equivalence that you have to understand that.

 

There's a difference between remembering the confederacy and the civil war and glorifying it. See my nazi example. These statues are showing them on horseback, looking honorable. They do not conjure up the image of "this was a bad thing and these people were bad." They were explicitly put in place to push back against civil rights.

 

 

To say that a flag or a statue only represents one thing is asinine and reactionary. History is history. You can't slap some Simple Green on it and wipe it away. People associate many other things to the Confederate Flag. A statue of a Confederate General does not represent only slavery. That was a person, not simply a stroke of paint in the canvas of racism and slavery.

 

So, the return of the confederate flag in conjunction with the KKK and opposition of civil rights is just a coincidence?

 

Also, not everyone gets a statue made of them. Why are these confederate people important enough to merit this. If you care so much about the town's history, why do they focus on this one 4 year period when they fought to preserve one of the worst parts of our country's history. You can have a museum for people to learn about the shameful things you've done. Why should this be in the middle of the town square?

[Omerta+ 1,206]

 

MLK's goal was for black people to have equal rights. The confederacy's goal was to ensure that they were allowed to own black people as property, and any confederate general was fighting for that. That's such a false equivalence that you have to understand that.

 

There's a difference between remembering the confederacy and the civil war and glorifying it. See my nazi example. These statues are showing them on horseback, looking honorable. They do not conjure up the image of "this was a bad thing and these people were bad." They were explicitly put in place to push back against civil rights.

 

I agree with you that it is not in the same vein. My example was not to make them sound like they are the same thing. What I am saying is that when you tear down an icon of one group of people, they are going to go after beacons for the other side like MLK. I think MLK was a good man, and had a great way of doing things, and was ahead of his time. I am on board with that. What I am saying is relying on Nazis to be rational is going to be tough. Places like where the David Dukes of the world have sway could see a huge destruction of monuments to black people.

 

I guess the question really is, how much is it worth. Tearing down that statue changes nothing past, nor future. So why create a whole new generation of racists? I know this is off topic but it is like in the last few years where those who hated Obama because he was a successful black man, saw a pariah in Trump and now we have a huge new wave of racism in this country. I am not going to say it was dead, but it was on its way. The only way to get rid of racism is for the racist people to die off. WEll we were getting close starting with Strom Thurmond and many after him dying, and we were close to having the younger generation have more influence which would have been good considering we are more accepting. That said now we have more racists among ourselves than before, and we are in for it all over again. Tearing down this statue is going to create a rallying cry.

 

Also the to the victor goes the spoils mentality is dangerous. What if someone someday wins and decides to tear down the Lincoln monument? Should they be able too? i don't know if that is a good idea. I believe this will set a precedent of some sort.

[seanbrock 1,684]

Erecting statues is a funny way to treat people who were in open rebellion against our country. Flying their flags is even more curious.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Erecting statues is a funny way to treat people who were in open rebellion against our country. Flying their flags is even more curious.

 

I agree. I am not opposed in principle to tearing them down, it is that you have to equally apply all rights. So if we tear this one down we open up more people to tear down ones that WERE NOT divisive and could be inspirational and hide behind the tearing down of this statue.

 

I think it would be best to let it be and just not commission more. I would be willing to wager that there will be 100 more MLK statues erected in my lifetime which is good, so we could really just let the existing ones stand and answer back with more of leaders like X, and MLK. If we could tear them down and it would not create a huge backlash of tearing down statues of people who were good for our country then fine, but this could set the wrong precedent.

[BwareDWare94 723]

The whole concept of removing something that doesn't openly represent hatred bothers me. I mean, if it was a giant swastika or something like that, by all means, but a flag represents more than one thing. Confederate Flags (and obviously not the battle flag) never flew on slave ships, for one thing. As for statues...we already teach altered, misrepresented history in high schools across the nation. Do we really need to go any further? lol

 

For the record, Robert E. Lee freed his slaves, none of whom he purchased, well before the Civil War was even over. What do people think he was if they want to tear down a statue of him?

Edited August 13, 2017 by BwareDWare94

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

To say that a flag or a statue only represents one thing is asinine and reactionary. History is history. You can't slap some Simple Green on it and wipe it away. People associate many other things to the Confederate Flag. A statue of a Confederate General does not represent only slavery. That was a person, not simply a stroke of paint in the canvas of racism and slavery.

I agree at a point that combines you and cherrys thougts. The way we perceive symbols is very different and that should be okay.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

The whole concept of removing something that doesn't openly represent hatred bothers me. I mean, if it was a giant swastika or something like that, by all means, but a flag represents more than one thing. Confederate Flags never flew on slave ships, for one thing. As for statues...we already teach altered, misrepresented history in high schools across the nation. Do we really need to go any further? lol

 

See that is the thing, is the Swastika has been an ancient symbol meaning anything but hate to the Dharmic religions for millennia before Hitler. So tearing that down could be sticky. This is where we have put ourselves allowing all religions to carry on as if their religion is the only thing that matters. That goes for Christian institutions who are richer than small countries by taking advantage of taxes, Muslims who live according to Sharia law because of religious freedom and so on. So we have to respect everything even if that entails large swastikas for Indian people as they have the claim to it well before it was a terrible thing. So what do you do? Just tell them tough shit ? It is an ugly situation.

[blotsfan 2,112]

 

The whole concept of removing something that doesn't openly represent hatred bothers me. I mean, if it was a giant swastika or something like that, by all means, but a flag represents more than one thing. Confederate Flags never flew on slave ships, for one thing. As for statues...we already teach altered, misrepresented history in high schools across the nation. Do we really need to go any further? lol

 

For the record, Robert E. Lee freed his slaves, none of whom he purchased, well before the Civil War was even over. What do people think he was if they want to tear down a statue of him?

So, why are you opposed to hanging a swastika if you don't think flags mean anything? The confederate flag is america's swastika. It represents a horribly shameful era that while we shouldn't forget, it should not be glorified in any way. Yes, a lot of bad things have been done in the name of the United States, but the confederacy was defined by slavery.

 

Teaching children that the confederacy was an abomination not to be glorified in any way would actually be more accurate than the message sent now by having monuments to them.

 

Also, I'm glad you brought up Lee because he's a perfect example of the propaganda pushed by confederate apologists.

[BwareDWare94 723]

 

See that is the thing, is the Swastika has been an ancient symbol meaning anything but hate to the Dharmic religions for millennia before Hitler. So tearing that down could be sticky. This is where we have put ourselves allowing all religions to carry on as if their religion is the only thing that matters. That goes for Christian institutions who are richer than small countries by taking advantage of taxes, Muslims who live according to Sharia law because of religious freedom and so on. So we have to respect everything even if that entails large swastikas for Indian people as they have the claim to it well before it was a terrible thing. So what do you do? Just tell them tough shit ? It is an ugly situation.

 

Let's put it this way...if you want a statue of something like a swastika (not saying that YOU do, but if a person was to erect one), it would be wise to include some sort of information regarding the original meaning of the symbol, along with a condemnation of Nazi use of the symbol.

 

The only reason anybody wants to remove Confederate Flags is because we are taught growing up that the Civil War was literally that black and white, that Abraham Lincoln was some sort of saint when in fact he was a horrendous womanizer, and that the south wanted to keep slavery as their driving force for fighting. None of that is necessarily true.

Edited August 13, 2017 by BwareDWare94

[seanbrock 1,684]

I think the comparison between confederate statues/confederate flags and MLK on state owned government funded property that is part of the Union is deeply flawed. Really the flag issue is separate for me. You're not flying the flag of an enemy state. That should be the end of the discussion. MLK was never in rebellion. He never had an army. He just fought for civil rights. He died for it. Regardless of how great Robert E. Lee was, he was a rebel. He tried to break the Union. Statues of him should be in museums not on publicly funded property.

 

If we're talking about private property that's another story. If you own a statue you don't have to take it down.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

I think the comparison between confederate statues/confederate flags and MLK on state owned government funded property that is part of the Union is deeply flawed. Really the flag issue is separate for me. You're not flying the flag of an enemy state. That should be the end of the discussion. MLK was never in rebellion. He never had an army. He just fought for civil rights. He died for it. Regardless of how great Robert E. Lee was, he was a rebel. He tried to break the Union. Statues of him should be in museums not on publicly funded property.

 

If we're talking about private property that's another story. If you own a statue you don't have to take it down.

It was never a comparison man. The simplest way i can say it is, people of all colors tear down the statue of Lee, white supremacists return fire tearing down a statue of MLK or other person they see as iconic to the Civil Rights Movement. You set a precedent in allowing this. Once you do that all people get the same rights, or should.So you will open that can of worms. I am not saying Lee and MLK are the same kind of guy.

[BwareDWare94 723]

 

So, why are you opposed to hanging a swastika if you don't think flags mean anything? The confederate flag is america's swastika. It represents a horribly shameful era that while we shouldn't forget, it should not be glorified in any way. Yes, a lot of bad things have been done in the name of the United States, but the confederacy was defined by slavery.

 

Teaching children that the confederacy was an abomination not to be glorified in any way would actually be more accurate than the message sent now by having monuments to them.

 

Also, I'm glad you brought up Lee because he's a perfect example of the propaganda pushed by confederate apologists.

 

For every article like this there is another that paints him in a completely different light.

[blotsfan 2,112]

It was never a comparison man. The simplest way i can say it is, people of all colors tear down the statue of Lee, white supremacists return fire tearing down a statue of MLK or other person they see as iconic to the Civil Rights Movement. You set a precedent in allowing this. Once you do that all people get the same rights, or should.So you will open that can of worms. I am not saying Lee and MLK are the same kind of guy.

 

I mean, it'd be the government doing this, not random angry mobs. If the government decides its time to tear down statues of MLK, its already too late.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

I mean, it'd be the government doing this, not random angry mobs. If the government decides its time to tear down statues of MLK, its already too late.

I agree but angry Republicans in the south would totally do that imo.

[BwareDWare94 723]

I agree but angry Republicans in the south would totally do that imo.

 

Here's the question about angry Republicans and angry Democrats. They exist, of course, but when a group tries to make a point via destruction and/or violence, are they angry Republicans/Democrats any longer? Or are they just self-absorbed twats who think destruction somehow leads to their way of thinking?

 

I really like Shapiro's Liberal vs. Leftist perspective. I think we can separate the nuts from the actual majority of the group. Of course, the reason many people won't do that is that the media only covers extremism and then paints the entire movement as such.

[Thanatos 2,847]

The whole concept of removing something that doesn't openly represent hatred bothers me. I mean, if it was a giant swastika or something like that, by all means, but a flag represents more than one thing. Confederate Flags (and obviously not the battle flag) never flew on slave ships, for one thing. As for statues...we already teach altered, misrepresented history in high schools across the nation. Do we really need to go any further? lol

 

For the record, Robert E. Lee freed his slaves, none of whom he purchased, well before the Civil War was even over. What do people think he was if they want to tear down a statue of him?

Hmm, I don't know, how about we ask General Robert E. Lee what he thought of making statues of himself and other confederates.

 

Direct quote, sent in by the general to a newspaper editorial on the erection of war monuments:

I think it wiser moreover not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered

Edited August 13, 2017 by Thanatos

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

 

Let's put it this way...if you want a statue of something like a swastika (not saying that YOU do, but if a person was to erect one), it would be wise to include some sort of information regarding the original meaning of the symbol, along with a condemnation of Nazi use of the symbol.

 

 

This was tried, actually. It isn't a statue or anything, but an apparel company wanted to try and release the negative stigma behind the swastika because for centuries before Hitler came along, it meant mostly the opposite. So they put the swastika on things like t-shirts with rainbows and words like "peace" and "love".

 

Shirts didn't do well and they are no longer making said shirts. lol

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/08/a-design-studio-tried-to-reclaim-the-swastika-by-putting-it-on-t-shirts-it-didnt-end-well/?utm_term=.0d1a361ce883

 

[RazorStar 4,025]

I agree with removing the confederate flags from buildings, you don't fly the flag of a traitor nation in your own country. They don't fly nazi flags in germany anymore, and when they do come up, they're immediately taken down and the people responsible are reprimanded. However, I'm not 100% on removing every single confederate statue that exists. The people who fight in the wars of the rich often don't follow the ideologies of the rich, and people are more than just confederates or nazis, or whatever label you end up putting on them. If you took down every statue of every person who did not conform to our current millennial sensibilities, you'd have no statues left.

[BJORN 679]

History is history but we have books to keep note of everything, don't need statues to glorify losers.

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

It takes a certain lack of empathy...

 

These people were in support, fought for the right to own slaves, and view them as less then humans.

 

The 13% of the country (black folks) that lives in these regions have to see these statues and hate symbols every day, and are reminded, every day, of what their place was in this country.

 

This in of itself is a form of oppression. If people want this stuff on their property, then by all means, go crazy. But public land, and government property? Really?

 

Literally no one, but a bunch of people full of either hatred, or a distorted view of America would lose sleep if these statues and other symbols are removed. Throw those pieces of trash into museums if people want to study them.

[oochymp 2,393]

A friend of mine had a great suggestion when this topic came up on Saturday in regards to Richmond's Monument Avenue. He suggested adding a plaque explaining who put the monuments up, when, and why. Most of the Confederate Monuments were erected in the early 1900s as a reaction to Reconstruction, when the South was almost an occupied territory to deal with the pressures created by immediate emancipation. In this context I think it's almost understandable that some people would have viewed the Confederacy in a nostalgic light even while that view seems terrible from the modern perspective. It's not a perfect solution, a plaque on the base certainly wouldn't be as visible as the statues themselves, but I think adding that sort of context allows the monuments to actually tell a full history.