(September 12, 2017 at 9:42 am)Rev. Rye Wrote: Well, excuse me for pointing out that there are, in fact, shades of grey in the issue.

We're having a discussion, and we don't disagree about Lee having a decent side or Jefferson being a slave-owner. But the crux of the discussion is not whether or not these leaders have shades of grey in them; of course they do -- all of them. The crux of the discussion is whether their life's work merits the honor of a public memorial which must be viewed, and maintained, by all citizens, including those whom these honorees would have condemned to slavery for millennia if that was their god's will.

Would you ask Jews to fund a statue commemorating Hitler's life and deeds? That is essentially what you are asking here, because in a very real sense, American slavery was an American Holocaust, with blacks killed in large numbers in transit, at work, or in escape, with black families broken apart, with entire lives being usurped. If you think Lee deserves a statue, great. I think any statue of his should reference his defense of this institution.

Whether Lee "fought for Virginia" rather than "defended an odious cause" in his own mind is irrelevant, because the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. That doesn't even consider the fables we tell ourselves to justify our actions even as we may know or suspect that those actions are wrong. Though you've brought a lot of information to this discussion, I don't regard it as germane. Those statues weren't erected to honor Lee's magnificent character and noblesse. They were erected to honor his Confederate service, and erected at times which reveal the context of the honor.

(September 12, 2017 at 9:42 am)Rev. Rye Wrote: Honestly, I think it might be best to leave the whole issue up to the historians who study the war (I'd personally nominate James McPherson [author of The Battle Cry of Freedom, the definitive book on the war, and Barbara Fields [the black historian from the Ken Burns miniseries, even does a good smackdown of Lincoln when discussing his desire to repatriate freed slaves]) to see if the shades of grey in any given Confederate leader are sufficient to consider keeping any statues of them worth it.

The whole issue of what? Public statuary? The biographies of past leaders? I think the public at large should continue to discuss and debate this. These are, after all, public land, public funds, and public memorials.

(September 12, 2017 at 10:12 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

---

Rev. Rye Wrote:Well, excuse me for pointing out that there are, in fact, shades of grey in the issue.

The issue is whether confederate war heroes ought to continue to be maintained in the public square rather than in museums or on confederate graveyards. Your vote seems to be yes.

Only if there is some legitimate grounds where they're worth admiring. Someone like Jefferson Davis, who stated flat out during the war that the whole point of it was to preserve slavery, and when he lost, denied it all, well, I wouldn't mind losing statues of him.

However, I see Lee's case as a bit more complicated, especially given that his views on slavery (since that is the big issue with regards to the Confederacy) were more nuanced that we seem to be willing to give him credit for. He was personally a slaveholder, but figured out that if giving up slavery meant saving the Union, he would have done so if Virginia had not seceded. He undermined the basic premise of the confederacy when he called for them to arm black soldiers, and he eventually figured out the whole thing was indefensible and surrendered in 1865. And in the last five years of his life, he didn't even really try to defend the regime he fought under. Personally, I would be fine if each major statue referenced the major problems in his worldview on a plaque.

You see, there's a lot of nuance to be seen here, and I personally see the inability of people to understand nuance to be a fundamentally dangerous thing.

And, for the record, that plan about having historians assess Confederate figures is to see whether or not they're worth keeping statues of.

(September 11, 2017 at 11:49 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: There are no monuments to Hitler in Berlin.

No, but if there were, I would support that fact. That's because a statue is not a person-- it is at this point a historical curiosity. Caesar was a dick in many ways, too, but I wouldn't object to his statue being in Rome. In fact, I would find it interesting, and take it as a chance to ponder that stage of history.

I really do not believe that the so-called aggrieved parties right now-- black people who claim to be deeply and mortally offended by the presence of confederate statues in those states which fought on the confederate side, for example, or even worse the SJWs who deign to speak on their behalf-- are really deeply harmed by the existence of those monuments, except if they make it a point to do so.

The hysterical rhetoric that so often follows these issues is, in my opinion, drummed up histrionics. Overall, the statue's existence or lack of existence, its display or its lack of display, really shouldn't matter as much as people pretend.

(September 12, 2017 at 10:53 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(September 11, 2017 at 11:49 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: There are no monuments to Hitler in Berlin.

No, but if there were, I would support that fact.  That's because a statue is not a person-- it is at this point a historical curiosity.  Caesar was a dick in many ways, too, but I wouldn't object to his statue being in Rome.  In fact, I would find it interesting, and take it as a chance to ponder that stage of history.

I really do not believe that the so-called aggrieved parties right now-- black people who claim to be deeply and mortally offended by the presence of confederate statues in those states which fought on the confederate side, for example, or even worse the SJWs who deign to speak on their behalf-- are really deeply harmed by the existence of those monuments, except if they make it a point to do so.

The hysterical rhetoric that so often follows these issues is, in my opinion, drummed up histrionics.  Overall, the statue's existence or lack of existence, its display or its lack of display, really shouldn't matter as much as people pretend.

Good point; also, there are monuments to Rommel throughout Germany, and I honestly think there are parallels to be made between Rommell and Lee.

Quote: I really do not believe that the so-called aggrieved parties right now-- black people who claim to be deeply and mortally offended by the presence of confederate statues in those states which fought on the confederate side, for example, or even worse the SJWs who deign to speak on their behalf-- are really deeply harmed by the existence of those monuments, except if they make it a point to do so.

But your beliefs do not matter.  The city council of Charlottesville voted to remove those statues from city-owned parks.  The protests were being organized by racist motherfuckers from all over the country who wanted them retained.  You know the right-wing is quick to denounce "outside agitators" when they are black or brown but when they are white - wearing sheets - they think they are fighting for history.

Bullshit.

People don't get their history from statuary.

People who think that moving a statue to a museum (or even just getting rid of it) is destroying/erasing history either haven't been to a museum before or aren't talking about history.

The community at the time decided they wanted to memorialize certain people for certain things, and now that same community has decided they no longer want to memorialize those people for those things. Nobody's saying remove this part of history from textbooks, or stop all exhibitions at museums at museums that they don't like, this isn't some whitewashing of history (ironically, the pro-Confederate Lost Cause narrative and subsequent statuary and monuments is whitewashing history). It's a community coming together to say they don't want to keep a statue(s). S'pretty simple.

(September 12, 2017 at 11:01 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote: I really do not believe that the so-called aggrieved parties right now-- black people who claim to be deeply and mortally offended by the presence of confederate statues in those states which fought on the confederate side, for example, or even worse the SJWs who deign to speak on their behalf-- are really deeply harmed by the existence of those monuments, except if they make it a point to do so.

But your beliefs do not matter.  The city council of Charlottesville voted to remove those statues from city-owned parks.  The protests were being organized by racist motherfuckers from all over the country who wanted them retained.  You know the right-wing is quick to denounce "outside agitators" when they are black or brown but when they are white - wearing sheets - they think they are fighting for history.

Bullshit.

Also a good point. If the city itself doesn't want it, then removing the statue is for the best and in that case, there's no point in me trying to argue otherwise. I am legitimately surprised this point has been buried underneath all the rhetoric over the past month.

(September 12, 2017 at 11:04 am)Rev. Rye Wrote:

(September 12, 2017 at 11:01 am)Minimalist Wrote: But your beliefs do not matter.  The city council of Charlottesville voted to remove those statues from city-owned parks.  The protests were being organized by racist motherfuckers from all over the country who wanted them retained.  You know the right-wing is quick to denounce "outside agitators" when they are black or brown but when they are white - wearing sheets - they think they are fighting for history.

Bullshit.

Also a good point. If the city itself doesn't want it, then it's for the best and in that case, there's no point in me trying to argue otherwise. I am legitimately surprised this point has been buried underneath all the rhetoric.

The problem comes when certain state legislatures have laws saying that no city can change/remove war monuments, a law which some states do have.

(September 12, 2017 at 11:08 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(September 12, 2017 at 11:04 am)Rev. Rye Wrote: Also a good point. If the city itself doesn't want it, then it's for the best and in that case, there's no point in me trying to argue otherwise. I am legitimately surprised this point has been buried underneath all the rhetoric.

The problem comes when certain state legislatures have laws saying that no city can change/remove war monuments, a law which some states do have.

Once again, there's something fundamentally insane about the fact that this is hardly even mentioned in the debates. I have a problem with dismissing a great general because of his very dodgy views and a lack of understanding of historical nuance on the part of the beholder, but I see no reason a state should force a city to keep a statue it doesn't want.