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

< Previous | Next >

superchuck500

U.S. Blues
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
1,915
Reaction score
4,303
Location
Charleston, SC
Offline
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.
 
Last edited:

Farb

Mostly Peaceful Poster
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,364
Reaction score
928
Age
45
Location
Mobile
Offline
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.
 

brandon

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
806
Reaction score
1,448
Offline
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

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
563
Reaction score
709
Age
37
Location
Baton Rouge
Offline
To borrow from Indiana Jones - they belong in a museum.
 

Farb

Mostly Peaceful Poster
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,364
Reaction score
928
Age
45
Location
Mobile
Offline
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.
 

RobF

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
291
Reaction score
878
Location
Warrington, UK
Offline
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

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
806
Reaction score
1,448
Offline
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

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2019
Messages
1,208
Reaction score
1,330
Location
Center of the Universe
Offline
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

Spirit Grocer
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
868
Reaction score
2,186
Location
Toronto
Offline
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

white house klansman goes into hiding
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
1,376
Reaction score
1,581
Age
85
Location
Back in 70124
Offline
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

Mostly Peaceful Poster
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,364
Reaction score
928
Age
45
Location
Mobile
Offline
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

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
1,813
Reaction score
1,427
Location
Nashville
Offline
monuments-over-time-splc.jpg


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.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

< Previous | Next >

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Advertisement

Fact Checkers News Feed

General News Feed

Advertisement

Top Bottom