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.
Look specifically to who are protesting those statues. It's not those of us who were in Civil Rights marches.
It's not just limited to one group; I'm black and have black relatives who were involved in the Civil Rights era protests who also feel a certain way about these statues and support them coming down. Now, I will say that the most vocal group seems to be the younger "woke" crowd, but the point remains. Heck, on this note, Eleanor Holmes Norton, DC's black non-voting member of Congress who was certainly involved in Civil Rights era protests, actually filed a bill to have the emancipation statue removed! (Source: https://dcist.com/story/21/02/18/ele...-lincoln-park/) Regardless, I argue that it doesn't matter who is protesting these statues. The point is that they are being protested, which seems backward in a lot of ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
You're setting your view too narrow. The march to equality for black people begins with Reconstruction, not the "Civil Rights Era." The erection of those statue corresponds with the beginning of successful southern initiatives to "put the negroes back in their place" at the start of the Jim Crow era.
Regardless of when the march to equality for black people began, it seems a stretch to claim that statues erected in the aftermath of the Civil War--to include the General Lee statute which was organized and for which fundraising began in 1870 shortly after General Lee passed away: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert...t_(New_Orleans)--given the actual history of these statues--were erected to "uphold Jim Crow." This is why I more narrowly focused on the Civil Rights era statues, which I think there is a very fair argument to be made that such monuments were erected for such a purpose. If folks were limited to protesting those statues that we could more definitively tie to being built as a symbol of Jim Crow, that's one thing. But this contemporary protest movement goes well beyond that. Hence, I don't believe that the lack of protest over the Alamo is due to what you claim.
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 11-08-2021 at 09:49 AM..
It's not just limited to one group; I'm black and have black relatives who were involved in the Civil Rights era protests who also feel a certain way about these statues and support them coming down. Now, I will say that the most vocal group seems to be the younger "woke" crowd, but the point remains. Heck, on this note, Eleanor Holmes Norton, DC's black non-voting member of Congress who was certainly involved in Civil Rights era protests, actually filed a bill to have the statue removed! Regardless, I argue that it doesn't matter who is protesting these statues. The point is that they are being protested, which seems backward in a lot of ways.
Of course it matters who is doing the protesting, just as it matters in a court of law who is bringing the lawsuit. Some people have "standing," and some don't. Some are just caping.
Quote:
Regardless of when the march to equality for black people began, it seems a stretch to claim that statues erected in the aftermath of the Civil War--to include the General Lee statute which was organized and for which fundraising began in 1870 shortly after General Lee passed away: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert...t_(New_Orleans)--given the actual history of these statues--were erected to "uphold Jim Crow." This is why I more narrowly focused on the Civil Rights era statues, which I think there is a very fair argument to be made that such monuments were erected for such a purpose. If folks were limited to protesting those statues that we could more definitively tie to being built as a symbol of Jim Crow, that's one thing. But this contemporary protest movement goes well beyond that. Hence, I don't believe that the lack of protest over the Alamo is due to what you claim.
You can tell the difference by the statue. If a man was being celebrated because he was a good citizen, he would be represented wearing a civilian suit. If he's represented wearing a Confederate uniform, he's being celebrated because he was defending slavery.
Of course it matters who is doing the protesting, just as it matters in a court of law who is bringing the lawsuit. Some people have "standing," and some don't. Some are just caping.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that it matters (it doesn't, as the point was made about black outcry in general toward the Alamo--to which you brought up a distinction--which wouldn't be limited to one subgroup), what do you have to say about people like Delegate Eleanor Norton Holmes, DC's non-voting delegate to Congress' position on the emancipation statue? Homes was born in 1937 (84 years old) and was an active participant in the Civil Rights era movement. She filed a bill to have the emancipation statue removed, calling it racially insensitive at the height of the recent statue removal movement and efforts: https://dcist.com/story/21/02/18/ele...-lincoln-park/. And I have relatives who are in a similar boat as Holmes. So, again, it is not accurate to claim that it is only specific group(s) trying to have statues like the emancipation memorial removed (as I mentioned, I don't think it matters who is doing the protesting, but that's ultimately neither here nor there as you clearly have people involved in the Civil Rights movement who are also against these things).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
You can tell the difference by the statue. If a man was being celebrated because he was a good citizen, he would be represented wearing a civilian suit. If he's represented wearing a Confederate uniform, he's being celebrated because he was defending slavery.
It is a mistake, I argue, to claim that those who celebrate the confederacy (or honor the confederate dead) are inherently celebrating slavery. While the cause of the Confederate War was linked decisively to the institution of slavery, many men who fought for the south did so simply as a means of protecting what they saw as an attack on their homeland from a northern invading force.
To such people, folks like General Lee were symbols of the defense of the homeland, which is why it makes sense to honor them for what they were known as (Lee isn't famous because he was a "good citizen" but due to his military role and position. Conversely, you had men who fought for the Union who didn't care if slavery continued (heck, Lincoln himself stated that he'd keep slavery if it meant preserving the union), but rather fought to prevent the breakup of the union. Of course, going back to the good citizen line, do you honestly think the outcry would be different if General Lee's statue was with him in a suite and tie? I'd argue that it would be worse, as the "woke" crowd claimed that folks were attempting to normalize him in another way and minimize his part in the war effort, an effort that--if successful--would have continued slavery.
But, speaking more contemporarily, the ire of some isn't limited to confederate monuments, but to statues of Abraham Lincoln and others (I guess they were erected to uphold Jim Crow, too), including the Emancipation Statue that was funded in part by former slaves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Memorial.
I find it hard to believe that you put Abraham Lincoln, who single handlely eliminated slavery in this country and preserved the union
on the same level as traitors that attacks US soldiers and bases and wanted to leave the US to start a new country that continued the institution of slavery.
As usual after so many pages, not to mention an inflammatory thread title, the topic is exceeding the bounds of the original discussion as some posters prefer to discuss, not history, but contemporary subject matter (with one poster even talking about current politicians). The subject of confederate statues has already been discussed before in this forum:
You will notice that the topic was finally locked. I love discussing the Alamo, but only the historical topic, as bad as the topic title is I still don't want it locked. This is the history forum - P&C is down below in the citydata sewers.
I find it hard to believe that you put Abraham Lincoln, who single handlely eliminated slavery in this country and preserved the union
on the same level as traitors that attacks US soldiers and bases and wanted to leave the US to start a new country that continued the institution of slavery.
You have to be blind to not see the difference
That's quite the reading comprehension you have there
Nice spin, but you hardly even begin to capture the point that I have made here.
But that's what happens when people try to selectively quote a passage out of context, ignoring the overall debate and point of discussion.
Let me spell it out in the face of your false attacks and insult. I explicitly referenced the unhinged attacks that some contemporarily (not me) have against the Emancipation Statue of President Lincoln to make my point that the attacks we see against monuments today isn't limited to issues concerning civil rights or the confederacy. My point is that some unhinged people today are foolishly treating the two as the same. Nowhere did I posit that this was my position; in fact, it was clear that it wasn't my position. Did you really read that passage and come to that conclusion you did? I'm floored.
Apart from this thread, I have never heard a black person even mention the Alamo. Is it even on the radar for black history or black racial awareness for the vast majority of blacks?
Apart from this thread, I have never heard a black person even mention the Alamo. Is it even on the radar for black history or black racial awareness for the vast majority of blacks?
No, because it was never a symbol of slavery or of the Civil War.
Apart from this thread, I have never heard a black person even mention the Alamo. Is it even on the radar for black history or black racial awareness for the vast majority of blacks?
That's actually a very interesting article thanks for taking the topic back to history, and shows the complexity of the issue beyond both the traditional and the modern "woke" discussion - while slavery existed, some black slaves actually took up arms as defenders and died in the Alamo, or were part of the slaughter inflicted by the Mexican Army. Likewise the Mexican Army had black "servants" (in theory - freemen, in practice - slaves).
I earlier indicated the likewise little known fact that Tejano's (Texans of Mexican decent) also fought against Santa Anna's army and died in the Alamo.
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.
I'd argue that it would be worse, as the "woke" crowd claimed that folks were attempting to normalize him in another way and minimize his part in the war effort, an effort that--if successful--would have continued slavery.
