Now they're after the mountain itself! (Macon, Decatur: 2014, houses, camps)

[Pemgin]

Originally Posted by LovinDecatur

Obviously. But why exclude one in favor of the other?

Because it's 2015 and we ought to be over celebrating men and a government fighting to keep people subjugated.

[Iconographer]

Originally Posted by Tryska

You are missing my point....if it's private property - that flag can do whatever it wants. But if it's State property - the state can expect public backlash - for good reason, too, imo. Don't want the hassle, divest of the property. Pretty straightforward. People can do what they wish on Private property.

I guess l should elaborate. Removing the flag would require a majority vote by the state legislature. The Georgia State Legislature. I think now you might see what you're up against.

[Tryska]

Originally Posted by LovinDecatur

I guess l should elaborate. Removing the flag would require a majority vote by the state legislature. The Georgia State Legislature. I think now you might see what you're up against.

Just transfer the land title to the private people running it. Then voting to remove the flag or not is irrelevant as it's no longer a "governmental" issue.

[Iconographer]

Originally Posted by Pemgin

Because it's 2015 and we ought to be over celebrating men and a government fighting to keep people subjugated.

I think recognition and celebration are two different things. Do you consider a tour of the Nazi death camps a 'celebration' of their history? Didn't think so.

[onemanarmy]

Originally Posted by cwkimbro

not exactly.

It was really started in 1915. It was planned to be something far bigger than it is now with more than just those 3 main characters. Lee's head was finished in the early 20s.

The original sculptor left the project to do Mount Rushmore after having creative conflicts.

Another sculptor started work on the project almost from scratch, including General Lee's head.

Money to pay for this dried up from the great depression and that sculptor died in 1935, but there was still a considerable amount of work done too. The state bought in 1958 planning to finish it and turn it into a park. That is what started in 1964. In 1972 they finished the compromised scaled down sculpture with the horse legs missing.


Stone Mountain has a very questionable history to say the least, but this was not some cheap piece of fabric the state hung up to be defiant to the civil rights movement.


....

My thoughts on this article and this stance from the NAACP.

At least when it comes to a simply monument or this relief.

It is a very expensive piece of art, a memorial, and the world's largest bas-relief sculpture. Just let it go and let the laser show do its things where they get to break their swords and everyone cheers. It is just three prominent figures on a horse that were an important part of history with no other symbolism on a specific issue.


Some parts of Southern white history and parts of the civil war aren't all about just about slavery. That is way too overly simplistic. Slavery -was- an important issue leading up to the civil War, but that was one issue inter-twined with other aspects of culture in the South and their desire for independence too. It was inter-twined with divisions that started before the popularity of the abolitionist movement in the North. It shouldn't be forgotten, but it shouldn't be pitched as the only and sole justification either.

There were also heavy export taxes on cotton and most Southerners felt that money went to the North. Back then the government got a greater percentage of its taxes through those types of taxes. Income tax didn't exist yet and tariffs were a big income source for the government. The Tariff of 1824, became a big political conflict between the South and the North and that conflict didn't go away. It was designed to protect Northern manufacturers from cheaper European goods, but it harmed anti-tariff reciprocity for Southern raw materials. Basically in those days the US couldn't compete with the superior industry in Europe and Europe couldn't compete with (and needed) the raw materials from the U.S. These tariffs escalated several times. South Carolina actually threatened secession in 1832. For over 35 years there was a battle over tariffs that were north v. south.

Southerners were trying to be independent and be on their own and keep and control their own potential taxes. Make laws to benefit farmers and not just industry at the cost of farmers. The South has always wanted to have greater local independence, even as a part of the US, well before and after the civil war. That was the heart of the Civil war. Sadly, slavery -is- a part of that, but not the only part.

The basic point is.... even though I will talk about slavery and the civil war and don't like people in complete denial over that connection, we don't have to look at every little thing memorializing the civil war and past Southern culture as just slavery. The civil war had a huge impact on the South and the results ended up being good and bad in different ways. Most of it was fought in the South and in the early years of Reconstruction the Republicans (modern-day irony) really economically decimated the South. It was something that brought Southerners together, even more... even though it would remain part of the U.S. It is worth having a memorial with some understanding that not every part of White Southern culture just about slavery.

Now I will agree that lasting abolition of slavery was probably the greatest and longest lasting outcome of the Civil War, it wasn't the only reason it was fought or the only division that existed between the North and South.

So when I see a monument or a memorial in the South regarding the war, I see mixed emotions and I can't support the blind removal of every one of them.

When it came down to the symbol put on the flag in 1956 in blatant defiance of of the civil rights movement... I get it. I wanted that flag gone for years, but if anyone wants to push this debate to every little memorial or other wide spread aspects of Southern culture from that era, they need to start acknowledging other aspects of culture, cultural divisions, and just what had happened to South before during and immediately after the war. It isn't necessarily to "commemorate slavery."



But I do want to end with this. If Stone Mountain Park is to be a memorial of the Civil War, it would seem proper to think of other ways to memorialize the positive affects after it.

Part of me thinks it would be fitting to memorialize the freedom of blacks throughout the park and do more to teach the history of how that happened and what happened after. It was the greatest and longest lasting effect of the civil war after all.

That was a very eloquently written piece of white washing.... Yes, Southerners had economic reasons for being independent. Their entire economies were built on FREE Labor, so all of that you wrote make sense, but it's moot. Without slavery the tax issues amongst others would not exist.

[Iconographer]

Originally Posted by Tryska

Just transfer the land title to the private people running it. Then voting to remove the flag or not is irrelevant as it's no longer a "governmental" issue.

Again, do you really think the legislature would allow such a thing?

[pollen]

Originally Posted by LovinDecatur

I think recognition and celebration are two different things. Do you consider a tour of the Nazi death camps a 'celebration' of their history? Didn't think so.

And would you consider a laser show, winter tubing hill, and mini golf to be appropriate at a Nazi death camp?

[bu2]

Originally Posted by atler8

This is sort of going off topic here but I have to butt in & thank Mutiny for the links he posted yesterday on the Texas school books story.
I have been following the story from over here in Georgia for quite a while because that sort of crap bothers the heck out of me. It's not a "leftist"-inspired story either out of Texas as the school board in that state that chooses text books & their content has decided to alter what is taught there about the Civil War to suit the ideological bent of the board & the Republican agenda which controls almost every aspect of state governance in Texas.
I am surprised that as a former Texan who apparently keeps up on all things Texas from over here in Atlanta, that you are not aware of this.
It's shameful for such a state board to repaint history in that manner so as to promote an ideological agenda in basic school books. If I were the parent of a child enrolled in public school in Texas, I would find it to be an absolutely unnaceptable development.

Washington Post was the first I had heard of it, although extremists on the textbook approval board are nothing new. They have been in control for a couple of decades. They just normally are about stopping changes, not creating their own.

With digital publishing, the concerns about Texas standards being in the rest of the country's books are overblown. 20 years ago it would have been more of an issue.

[Listener2307]

Originally Posted by Psykomonkee

This is a dumb topic, but I do have an opinion so here goes it...

I do think it was dumb to have those generals on the mountain in the first place, but whatever. It's there & it looks nice. F who they are, they were idiots and traitors to the nation in the first place.
Honestly, those generals are really no different than having a large Edward Snowden statue put up in Brooklyn...

Really. The Confederacy were traitors. And as a pro American, anything Confederate equals anti-American.

With that being said, I still don't see why have the sculptures removed. It's still history. Good or bad, it's history. To remove them would be the same dumb tragedy as Christians burning books & demonizing Science during the dark ages, or other conquerors destroying the culture of the people they've conquered. Would be about as bad as someone removing the face off the Sphinx. Just leave the sculpture alone. But the flags? That's a different story. Let's be real... F "Heritage..." That flag isn't heritage. It's not even the real Confederate flag. It's the battle flag, therefore it represents nothing BUT Anti-Union aka UNITED States of America... Anti-American behind a series of hateful beliefs with a foundation in complete selfishness, so selfish that one person could hurt another person simply to make their own life a little easier. No different than an ISIS Flag. No different than a Nazi flag... It's an embarrassment to be Southern and look around and see all these people claim this anti-American flag represents Southern heritage. NO IT DOESN'T! STOP! It's embarrassing...

Get rid of the stupid flags. Leave the stupid sculpture...

You've lost sight of the big picture.
The Confederacy tried to leave the Union. No one was killed at Fort Sumter.

The Union invaded The South. Look at a map. Nearly all battles were fought in the South.

The war was unnecessary.

[Tryska]

Originally Posted by LovinDecatur

Again, do you really think the legislature would allow such a thing?

Why not? Politicians love a graceful solution that let's them have their cake and eat it too. Bonus points if they get paid for the land and collect sales tax and property taxes. All while keeping their hands clean of this "klan" stuff (while secretly supporting the "klan" stuff, because that's how politicians roll.)

Originally Posted by pollen

And would you consider a laser show, winter tubing hill, and mini golf to be appropriate at a Nazi death camp?

This is an excellent question. lol

On a serious note - I also don't think the Nazi flag is flown at the Auschwitz memorial at least. I have never been, but I can't recall seeing it in any pictures.