Confederate Symbolism; Time to Stop Nursing Grievances and Relitigating Past (enemies, generations)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You know, when I was a principal in Virginia, one day a Black student (female) was sent to my office because she was refusing to do an assignment in history class -- to write a 2-3 page essay about "The American President I Most Admire". The student told me that she didn't admire White American presidents; that she admired the kings and queens of Africa. So I said, "Okay, tell me about one." "Whaddya mean?" "Tell me about one of the Black kings or queens of Africa that you admire." She couldn't think of one. In other words, she just didn't want to do the assignment.
This is not unlike the guys who were protesting in Charlottesville in support of Nazis or the stormfronters. Most of them (there were exceptions, of course) don't know shyte about the generals of the Civil War, or Jefferson Davis, or much of anything else about that conflict. And I'm not just guessing that's true. I lived in Virginia for most of my adult life and got into some conversations about the general topic with those who supposedly had pride about the Confederate history of the state. I'd always ask questions like "Which Confederate general do you most admire?" They'd usually say either Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson. And then I'd ask, "What, specifically, do you admire about them?" They could never answer. "How many times have you visited the Civil War battlefields down around Fredericksburg?" We only lived less than an hour's drive from there. Almost all never had. And so on.
This topic has NOTHING to do with those statues, which virtually none of those alt-right protestors would even stop and glance at if they walked right past them. This has nothing to do with the Civil War -- which most of them are too uneducated to discuss. What it really has to do with is the culture wars in general.
I thought that your post was very interesting, coming from the U.K. I don't have a dog in this hunt, save for the fact that I'm interested in history, all history, ours, yours, Europe's, Australia's, (even shorter than yours).
Whenever I've been near any historical site in the U.S., I've tried to check it out, The Prison Ship Martyrs Monument in Brooklyn N.Y., the Trenton N.J. battle monument, Gettysburg PA, Andersonville GA P.O.W. camp, Chickamauga GA, and as many as I could in VA.
I spent a week in Richmond VA once, our rental apartment was 500 metres from Monument Avenue, those statues blew me away, Lee, J.E.B. Stuart, Jeff Davis, Jackson.
I would expect nothing else in the Capital of the Confederacy, if I think anything of them, I think that the South saw them as heroes who were trying to establish an independent country, as their forefathers did some 80 plus years earlier.
I reiterate, I'm just looking at the history of the period, not the socio-economic impact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brownbagg
black people who was never slaves are fighting white people who was never nazis over a
confederate statues erected by democratic, because democratic can not stand there own history
and somehow its trump fault.
on facebook this week
An exercise in the non grammatical, unpunctuated method of English composition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ro2113
Why would anyone build such statues in the place? What are they supposed to represent?
To those that erected them, and those people that viewed them, history I guess.
In the world of 'identity politics' and 'virtue signaling', we choose our heroes and choose our victims on the basis of historical perception rather than historical accuracy. Thus, Robert E. Lee offends while George Washington, also a slave owner, does not.
Much of this is to do with subordinating history to contemporary politics. It is the management of history to support a political agenda. This isn't a new phenomenon although it has tended to be the hallmark of dictators and authoritarian regimes. But what we are seeing in the democratic west - and this is far from limited to the USA - is a new authoritarianism and intolerance which is using the tools of the technological revolution to impose its norms and police the recalcitrants.
Lazy false equivalency. In George Washington's age, non-whites could be slaves. It was an embryonic nation just barely defining itself. Washington revolted against England.
Robert E Lee was a full advocate for black slavery and revolted against his own country. Without the Civil War, RE Lee could have been shot as a traitor at any time.
Then mostly in the 1920s a southern movement to say "we still believe in Confederate principles" erected hundreds of F-U statues to intimidate black southerners. Some of these things can be saved in a museum context but the rest should be removed.
Pathetic someone of your age needs to learn these basics.
Lazy false equivalency. In George Washington's age, non-whites could be slaves. It was an embryonic nation just barely defining itself. Washington revolted against England.
Robert E Lee was a full advocate for black slavery and revolted against his own country. Without the Civil War, RE Lee could have been shot as a traitor at any time.
Then mostly in the 1920s a southern movement to say "we still believe in Confederate principles" erected hundreds of F-U statues to intimidate black southerners. Some of these things can be saved in a museum context but the rest should be removed.
Pathetic someone of your age needs to learn these basics.
George Washington also revolted against his own country, the United Kingdom (not England). The difference is that he won and Lee did not. Had Washington lost, he would probably have been hanged as a traitor. George Washington was a slave owner. So was Jefferson and others. Those are the facts.
The historical narrative is selective choosing its heroes and villains to suit its agenda. That is as true today as it was in the 1920s and it is true all over the world and not just in the USA. Many historical figures are highly divisive; for example, Cromwell or William III (William of Orange) in the UK. Generally, we avoid having an honest discussion about them preferring symbolism and the popular/national myth.
Whether the statues should be removed or not is a matter for the communities where they stand. But their removal will not change the core issues which provoked the recent clash nor will it lead to a dialogue between two entrenched camps.
George Washington also revolted against his own country, the United Kingdom (not England). The difference is that he won and Lee did not. Had Washington lost, he would probably have been hanged as a traitor. George Washington was a slave owner. So was Jefferson and others. Those are the facts.
The historical narrative is selective choosing its heroes and villains to suit its agenda. That is as true today as it was in the 1920s and it is true all over the world and not just in the USA. Many historical figures are highly divisive; for example, Cromwell or William III (William of Orange) in the UK. Generally, we avoid having an honest discussion about them preferring symbolism and the popular/national myth.
Whether the statues should be removed or not is a matter for the communities where they stand. But their removal will not change the core issues which provoked the recent clash nor will it lead to a dialogue between two entrenched camps.
Well, let's talk about the statues of Oliver Cromwell, since there are some political similarities.
There are several statues of Cromwell around, even though he led a revolt against the Crown that eventually failed. My understanding is that the existence of those statues is still highly controversial.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,178 posts, read 13,461,836 times
Reputation: 19477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
Well, let's talk about the statues of Oliver Cromwell, since there are some political similarities.
There are several statues of Cromwell around, even though he led a revolt against the Crown that eventually failed. My understanding is that the existence of those statues is still highly controversial.
Cromwell won Ralph - and the King Charles I executed.
However it wasn't about slavery, it was who should hold power the Monarchy or the Parliament.
The two sides were the Royalists known as the Cavaliers and the Parliamentarians known as the Roundheads.
Charles's son Charles II was later crowned King but with much reduced powers, as a result of Cromwell and Parliaments victory.
The English Civil War killed a higher percentage of the population than any other war in the countries history including the two world wars, and Cromwell who detested catholics and put down numerous plots against him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC
The Royalists regrouped and allied with the rebellious Catholics in Ireland. They aimed to invade Britain and overthrow the parliamentary regime.
Cromwell invaded Ireland and attacked a heavily fortified stronghold at Drogheda, on Ireland’s east coast.
He stormed the city and slaughtered thousands – a bloody act, which he said was retribution for a Catholic massacre of Protestants in 1641.
Cromwell returned to England and in 1651 crushed a Scottish invasion led by King Charles I’s son at the Battle of Worcester. Cromwell called it his ‘crowning victory’.
Cromwell is a very controversial figure, and there are few statues of him, indeed the main one is a rather small statue outside Parliament in London, although I believe his statue serves as a timely reminder rather than something we should forget.
There is also a statue of Cromwell in the grounds of Warrington Academy in Cheshire marking his 300th anniversary, whilst Manchester did have plans to move it's statue of Cromwell back from Wythenshawe Hall to form part of a medieval quarter in Manchester, but I think they were later abandoned.
The small town of St Ives in Cambridgeshire near to Cromwells birth place, also has a statue, he was also MP for the local Huntingdonshire constituency.
By contrast there is a magnificent statue of of King Charles I mounted on his horse in Charing Cross, London.
So Cromwell may have won the war, but certainly lost in terms of how he is now viewed in history.
Last edited by Brave New World; 08-21-2017 at 08:18 AM..
George Washington also revolted against his own country, the United Kingdom (not England). The difference is that he won and Lee did not. Had Washington lost, he would probably have been hanged as a traitor. George Washington was a slave owner. So was Jefferson and others. Those are the facts.
The historical narrative is selective choosing its heroes and villains to suit its agenda. That is as true today as it was in the 1920s and it is true all over the world and not just in the USA. Many historical figures are highly divisive; for example, Cromwell or William III (William of Orange) in the UK. Generally, we avoid having an honest discussion about them preferring symbolism and the popular/national myth.
Whether the statues should be removed or not is a matter for the communities where they stand. But their removal will not change the core issues which provoked the recent clash nor will it lead to a dialogue between two entrenched camps.
Washington and Jefferson happened to be slave owners. Robert E Lee led an appalling war mostly to keep slavery legal. I've got no time for anyone who can't see the moral, political and military difference there.
Well, let's talk about the statues of Oliver Cromwell, since there are some political similarities.
There are several statues of Cromwell around, even though he led a revolt against the Crown that eventually failed. My understanding is that the existence of those statues is still highly controversial.
Growing up in Glasgow, William of Orange is far more controversial than Cromwell.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,178 posts, read 13,461,836 times
Reputation: 19477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
You mean there is no longer a Church of England?
Well, he was also executed, albeit posthumously. And the royalty was reinstated as the head of government.
The powers of royalty were already diminishing, and had been since 1215.
And Cromwell's statues are still controversial.
Also, all those statues of Calvin and Luther in the Vatican....
I think if you go back to my post I do mention most of that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In George Washington's age, non-whites could be slaves. It was an embryonic nation just barely defining itself. Washington revolted against England.
