Movement against Confederate relics gains broad-based support (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

In the past week, we have seen Nascar move to ban the display of the Confederate flag at sanctioned-races, an effort to rename military bases named after Confederate leaders, and new removals of Confederate monuments.

Unlike the reaction to kneeling during the anthem - which implicated widely-held views about the U.S. flag, patriotism, and the national anthem, it seems that this effort is more focused in that the Confederate flag has no official meaning in the present . . . and has become, like it or not, fully co-opted by genuine racists. Of course, that doesn't mean that everyone that supports the flag is a genuine racist, but that soil becomes harder and harder to stand on with each day.

Have we reached the point where the celebration of Confederate relics can be considered effective racism - or is there still a viable argument that it somehow can be distinguished? Of course, choosing to display that flag remains a right under the First Amendment . . . but private organizations, companies, and ndividuals, of course, have their prerogative to reject and ban it should they choose that they wish not to be associated with it in any way.

 

[brandon]

Have we reached the point where the celebration of Confederate relics can be considered effective racism

We’ve been there for around 150 years or so.

 

[superchuck500]

We’ve been there for around 150 years or so.

Yes, that's certainly a widely-held perspective.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Have we reached the point where the celebration of Confederate relics can be considered effective racism

Essentially, this was their intended purpose.

 

[Farb]

Lets take 2 NOLA examples. Lee at Lee circle and Beauregard at city park.
Lee circle caused an outcry because it was a land mark (as it was meant to be) and the removal was done in the night. Sometimes, it not what you do or say but how you do or say it. This was one of those. Personally, I could care less about Lee. The statue was put up, arguably, as a symbol of jim crowe ect... and Lee had no real direct effect on NOLA. Even as a kid I wondered why it was there.

Now the Beauregard statue to me personally was a little short sighed and knee jerk because Beauregard was from and lived in NOLA, was an active part of the community after the civil war. He led a unification movement and pushed for desegregation of schools, transport and voting. This was done because he was in his confederate uniform. That is ticky tack IMO. Granted, this removal was a win for the previous mayor and I think mainly political.

I think most Americans can tell when a statue belongs or was kind of forced there. To me, Beauregard should have stayed because of the actual history/location involved.

This current 'movement/religion/cause' that is sweeping the world seems to focus on any statue of a historical figure world wide. Gandhi statue was vandalized as with Churchill/Columbus and Lincoln in London. So, I am not sure it is fair to call it a movement to remove 'confederate' statues as more to remove 'questionable historical' statues. It may wear that costume here in the US but we only have to look across the pond to see that is not entirely accurate.

 

[zztop]

Most of them were built in the 1900s, I wonder why

There was also a spike in the 1960s, I wonder why

 

[brandon]

So, I am not sure it is fair to call it a movement to remove 'confederate' statues as more to remove 'questionable historical' statues.

Sounds good to me. Confederates weren’t the only venerated bad guys in history.

 

[JRad]

To borrow from Indiana Jones - they belong in a museum.

 

[Farb]

Sounds good to me. Confederates weren’t the only venerated bad guys in history.

It would also help to accurately quote me but anyway, I would agree with that but who decides good and bad guys? That's what worries me. Good guy today, bad guy after hitting send.

 

[superchuck500]

Most of them were built in the 1900s, I wonder why

There was also a spike in the 1960s, I wonder why

That’s pretty compelling - I mean on top of all the other compelling stuff.

 

[RobF]

It would also help to accurately quote me but anyway, I would agree with that but who decides good and bad guys? That's what worries me. Good guy today, bad guy after hitting send.

I was about to quote the exact same sentence from your post. Quoting the pertinent part of a post isn't inaccuracy. Anyway, what I was going to say is that while there's naturally a broader movement towards statues representing beliefs or movements that are antithetical with today's standards, it's still clearly fair to talk specifically about the distinct movement against confederate relics and call that what it is. Why wouldn't it be?

Similarly, in the UK we obviously don't have a movement against confederate relics, but we do have a movement against statues of people who were heavily involved in the slave trade that's distinct from the broader movement against statues of people (e.g. Robert Baden-Powell) for other reasons.

As for who decides, we do. Look at it like inheriting your great-grandparents' house. Just because they put a portrait of General Lee on the wall doesn't mean you have to keep it up. No generation has a right to demand subsequent generations revere the same people with statues and monuments.

 

[brandon]

It would also help to accurately quote me but anyway, I would agree with that but who decides good and bad guys? That's what worries me. Good guy today, bad guy after hitting send.

I’m sorry you accidentally had a good idea.

And yea, if someone is truly a good person today, they will be looked upon as a good person in the future.

And if it’s determined that someone has done something today that by the future’s standards no longer makes them worthy of veneration, then so be it.

That’s called progress.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Lets take 2 NOLA examples. Lee at Lee circle and Beauregard at city park.
Lee circle caused an outcry because it was a land mark (as it was meant to be) and the removal was done in the night. Sometimes, it not what you do or say but how you do or say it. This was one of those. Personally, I could care less about Lee. The statue was put up, arguably, as a symbol of jim crowe ect... and Lee had no real direct effect on NOLA. Even as a kid I wondered why it was there.

Now the Beauregard statue to me personally was a little short sighed and knee jerk because Beauregard was from and lived in NOLA, was an active part of the community after the civil war. He led a unification movement and pushed for desegregation of schools, transport and voting. This was done because he was in his confederate uniform. That is ticky tack IMO. Granted, this removal was a win for the previous mayor and I think mainly political.

I think most Americans can tell when a statue belongs or was kind of forced there. To me, Beauregard should have stayed because of the actual history/location involved.

This current 'movement/religion/cause' that is sweeping the world seems to focus on any statue of a historical figure world wide. Gandhi statue was vandalized as with Churchill/Columbus and Lincoln in London. So, I am not sure it is fair to call it a movement to remove 'confederate' statues as more to remove 'questionable historical' statues. It may wear that costume here in the US but we only have to look across the pond to see that is not entirely accurate.

A few corrections. One, Lee wasn't taken down at night. It was during the day. I think Liberty (and possibly Davis) was done at night/early morning.

The Beauregard statue should've come down as well. It was a memorial to his time in the Confederacy, hence him being in full military gear on a horse. It had zero to do with what he did after the war.

 

[Ayo]

And yea, if someone is truly a good person today, they will be looked upon as a good person in the future.

And if it’s determined that someone has done something today that by the future’s standards no longer makes them worthy of veneration, then so be it.

That’s called progress.

I'm not even sure it's progress, in all cases. Because that presumes that we didn't know back then that things like some of these historical figures did was wrong. There were religious people who were throwing themselves off of the boats of explorers and conquistadors because of what they saw. We have record of objections.

It's also this weird cognitive dissonance that I'll see from a lot of really religious people.

"So they raped the wives of other men. They fed children and babies to dogs. They murdered and maimed. But that was all the way back like 500 years ago. Everyone thought these things were okay."

also,

"We need more of the Bible, that book that's thousands of years old, in our society because it provides us with a moral code and fabric of what's right and wrong."

I get that 1520 isn't 2020, but a lot of these defenses are feeble.

But we've known about these things and their being 'wrong' for a long time. This is more indicative of a power shift than it is, imo, about history or knowledge.

 

[insidejob]

Take em all down and put them in museums where they belong and teach people about who these people were, what they did, why they were memorialized in the first place (the real reason) and why they were later taken down. Tell the whole story up to modern times.

I was so used to the statues around New Orleans that I just thought the statues were cool without ever even thinking about who or what they were anymore. They were just part of the landscape. With them gone, I don't miss them one bit.

 

[Farb]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...uce-statue-Scotland-branding-racist-king.html

Was Robert the Bruce a racist? This might be more of the bad messaging that is going around lately?

 

[Farb]

A few corrections. One, Lee wasn't taken down at night. It was during the day. I think Liberty (and possibly Davis) was done at night/early morning.

The Beauregard statue should've come down as well. It was a memorial to his time in the Confederacy, hence him being in full military gear on a horse. It had zero to do with what he did after the war.

Thanks for the correction about cover of night. The other correction wasn't needed as it was addressed. I said it was a ticky tack argument.

 

[JimEverett]

Most of them were built in the 1900s, I wonder why

There was also a spike in the 1960s, I wonder why

I think the spike in the early 1900s came in large part due to the founding of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy in the 1890s - which, I think, funded most of those statutes. I think their founding also was the result and helped propel the revisionist history of the South - the sort of "Lost Cause" stuff that gave rise to the huge influence of the KKK after WW1 - among other things.