Should the Lee Circle statue be removed? (New Orleans, Jefferson: purchase, to live)

[Jimbo_1]

Originally Posted by annie_himself

Are you black?

No and I hope you are not trying to say my opinion doesn't matter as much or something. As a native of the city, who has ancestors that have been here for generations (though ironically none were here before the civil war), I think my opinion matters just as much if not more than someone who has lived here for six months (even if they are black), though sorry if I jumped the gun and misunderstood what you were implying. But really I obviously understand the viewpoint of the Black population, my only point was that this whole situation has been handled poorly and a better compromise could have been reached, is that really a contentious viewpoint.

Originally Posted by silverhead

Well they have been there for rather a long time.Why now?

Just an observation but the funny thing I have noticed is that if you were to ask the average american, such as someone from Massachusetts or California, even say your typical Northern liberal democrat, most of whom who know the history of the civil war, they question why these statues are being torn down now. You being from another country (born there?) even expands that observation, a lot of people see it as an extreme, unnecessary step. Its not like it is only a bunch of Confederate sympathizers from the South who are all racists or secretly racists that have the viewpoint that maybe these statues shouldn't come down, it's not that black and white of an issue, no pun intended.

[annie_himself]

Originally Posted by Jimbo_1

No and I hope you are not trying to say my opinion doesn't matter as much or something. As a native of the city, who has ancestors that have been here for generations (though ironically none were here before the civil war), I think my opinion matters just as much if not more than someone who has lived here for six months (even if they are black), though sorry if I jumped the gun and misunderstood what you were implying. But really I obviously understand the viewpoint of the Black population, my only point was that this whole situation has been handled poorly and a better compromise could have been reached, is that really a contentious viewpoint.



Just an observation but the funny thing I have noticed is that if you were to ask the average american, such as someone from Massachusetts or California, even say your typical Northern liberal democrat, most of whom who know the history of the civil war, they question why these statues are being torn down now. You being from another country (born there?) even expands that observation, a lot of people see it as an extreme, unnecessary step. Its not like it is only a bunch of Confederate sympathizers from the South who are all racists or secretly racists that have the viewpoint that maybe these statues shouldn't come down, it's not that black and white of an issue, no pun intended.

Not quite. But I do think it shapes your opinion, or helps shapes your opinion. Do you not think so? Being white, you're (not you but in general) taught "southern heritage" and being black, I was taught white supremacy.

How do you know that? There's a study of this happening?

[Brucifer]

When are they going to tear down the statue of this slave owner?

[annie_himself]

When he goes back in time and lives to 1865 and fights for his right to keep slaves.

[southwest88]

Originally Posted by Brucifer

When are they going to tear down the statue of this slave owner [George Washington]?

Pres. Washington left instructions in his will that his slaves were to be manumitted upon his wife's death. & a year after his death, his wife did free them. Yah, Washington was also a product of the Planter Society in Virginia. However, he came to have doubts about slavery.

He didn't speak out about the issue though, not wanting to make slavery a divisive issue in the new US. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George...on_and_slavery for a discussion of the issues.

[selogic]

" selective outrage " ..

[Desertfalcon]

Originally Posted by annie_himself

Yes because fighting a war to keep people enslaved for the sake of the economy and white superiority is in no way comparable to fighting a war to exterminate a race to keep Aryan superiority.

No, it's not. When Jefferson Davis eventually made a life for himself and his family after the war and his imprisonment, do you know who some of the people were who helped him? His former slaves. And if you think that they just had to, I suggest you read a good biography of Davis and look at some of the primary source evidence. Think that it was just Davis? It was in fact, not at all uncommon. Can you imagine Hitler during the war, taking in a Jewish boy and giving him a home? Feeding him, giving him his family's clothes to wear, treating him as a loved foster-child, eventually paying for and sending him to a private school to get an education and make a good life? Probably not. Jefferson Davis did exactly that with an abused (by his mother.) slave boy, who his wife Varina had rescued. During the 1930's, one of the New Deal initiatives was the Federal Writers Project. One of their assignments was to gather narratives of slaves still alive or their children, before it was lost. When the project was complete and published it was controversial then. Why? Because people were shocked at the percentage of positive statements about slave owners and their families.

Now, I am absolutely NOT defending slavery nor about to say that that was the whole story, but it clearly is a story that is of several magnitudes different than 13 million people being rounded up and exterminated in concentration camps.

The problem is that the PC self-righteous, highly emotional lens to which history is viewed today will not allow a more truthful and nuanced narrative. It's not an attack on the Confederacy. It's an attack on history, an attack on truth and a promotion of ignorance.

[selogic]

Wait for it .....

[Brucifer]

Originally Posted by annie_himself

When he goes back in time and lives to 1865 and fights for his right to keep slaves.

Like Lieutenant Colonel John Pemberton (Third Cavalry Battalion, Georgia State Guard), founder of Coke-Cola?

Have a Coke and a smile.

BTW, ol' Georgie would have to move forward in time to 1865.

Originally Posted by southwest88

Pres. Washington left instructions in his will that his slaves were to be manumitted upon his wife's death. & a year after his death, his wife did free them. Yah, Washington was also a product of the Planter Society in Virginia. However, he came to have doubts about slavery.

He didn't speak out about the issue though, not wanting to make slavery a divisive issue in the new US. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George...on_and_slavery for a discussion of the issues.

"I regret that the attempt you made to restore the Girl (Oney Judge as she called herself while with us, and who, without the least provocation absconded from her Mistress) should have been attended with so little Success. To enter into such a compromise with her, as she suggested to you, is totally inadmissible, for reasons that must strike at first view: for however well disposed I might be to a gradual abolition, or even to an entire emancipation of that description of People (if the latter was in itself practicable at this moment) it would neither be politic or just to reward unfaithfulness with a premature preference [of freedom]; and thereby discontent before hand the minds of all her fellow-servants who by their steady attachments are far more deserving than herself of favor."

This is not a question of character, just slave ownership. Or Confederacy. Or something.

At least when all those statues are down, New Orleans will be the shining city at the end of the rainbow when you can walk down the street at night in perfect safety.

[selogic]

Of course not , but Mitch's "base" will love him for it . That's what it's all about anyway .