Regarding The Flap Over Confederate Statues

[The Grand Nudger]

-as an addendum.  That Lee has been turned into an anti-hero, in and of itself is the product of whitewashing..so, let;s conider those statues that exist and for which such whitewashing has not been so broadly floated beyond the confines of modern day confederate sympathizers. Lee has been whittled into a great man, but how about Quantrill, Mosby, and McNeill?

The "guerillas" of Kansas and Missouri (and Virginia as well).  Those confederate leaders who actually did achieve something of military significance.  Those who understood the tactics required of the south in opposition to the north. Terrorists.  They also have statues and memorials, describing their valiant fight for freedom in defense of the constitution in the war of northern aggression.  Strangely, there's no mention of terrorism.  Perhaps even more strange..is that they had a union analog in a man named Jennison and his Redlegs.  His existence, however, isn't the strange bit - it's that his legacy is not diluted or occluded.  He is openly acknowledged as a union terrorist who employed barbaric tactics in order to reduce both the western forces and support for the same.

I mention all of this to explain why, for the set of "statue enthusiasts" and "history buffs", the solution of shelving these things in a museum won;t work. They will be shelved in a museum that treats them as Jennison has been treated. This is anathema to the lost cause interpretation of the civil war, and flatly unacceptable to any overt neo-confederate. The mayor of Lexington, a blue city in a sea of red, announced plans to move such statues to a more proper setting. To a museum. Totally Not Racist™ people objected. The person whom the statue purportedly honors? John Hunt Morgan. A man who, with no orders...invaded Kentucky, gained no advantage, lost his entire unit, and in so doing fatally wounded the confederacy.

None of this is mentioned on the monument...either. You'd think he was the Hero of Lexington, and many Totally Not Racist™ Statue Enthusiasts and History Buffs seem to be under the impression that he was. OFC, purportedly, the residents cheered when he first rolled into town...so there's that.

[Rev. Rye]

Yeah, those guys can't really be defended. Either the terrorists and the people who get so worked up defending them.

[Thumpalumpacus]

See what I find?  I would assume that since one of the dominant memes of this thread is, "It's their city, if the people of Charlottesville want to remove statues from public space, let them do it," that the people making this claim actually have information that the people of Charlottesville, for the most part, DO want that.  I have to say that given the overall opinion in the US, and given where Charlottesville sits in that picture politically, that seems highly unlikely indeed.  Frankly, I was expecting someone to immediately quote numbers demonstrating that position to be true-- but since nobody has, I'm attempting to get as close to real numbers as is currently possible.

You'd said you were looking, so I said "let's see what you find." I haven't myself based my arguments on public opinion; I have only said that that might be a third way to address this issue, in addition to the two you've proposed. Now, I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but they can actually take the measure of public opinion there and elsewhere by voting. I know, shocking, right?

As matters stand, the city council there decided 3-2. It remains to be seen whether or not their vote can be binding in the face of state law.

As for where I live, that's a pretty clear genetic fallacy.  

I grew up in the States as well as Canada.  I'm also surrounded by Americans all the time, currently mostly black, with whom I can discuss things like this.  But even if NONE of this were true, I have plenty of experience with statues, with cultural sensitivities, and with the idea of free speech.  I'm a true enough Scotsman for this debate, buddy.

I'd say that understanding the society where this unrest is happening goes beyond understanding statues and free speech. It also involves history -- a requirement I notice you didn't mention in your listing of qualifications -- and understanding the views of those who are aggrieved. You seem pretty deficient in the latter and of uncertain qualification in the former. I don't know how long you've lived in America -- or where -- nor do I know your understanding of black culture in America. Everything I've read from you in this thread indicates you haven't learnt a damned thing about the latter, your black friends notwithstanding.

Yeah, and I said that statues of Custer, Columbus and even Lincoln serve the same function for natives-- to demonstrate that their land is permanently lost to them, and that many of the ones most instrumental in that loss are still counted among America's heroes.

Lookee here, the logician is practicing tu quoque. Maybe you can educate us here: which campaigns are happening towards those ends? Maybe you should start a thread about those movements? I'll happily offer my opinion. Until then, this looks an awful lot like "I don't mind statues of people which harmed my folk, therefore you should shut the fuck up about statues you don't like."

Hey, if you're happy with those statues, great. But you've got no business telling others what they should and shouldn't feel. And their opinion means every bit as much as yours -- more, in my book, because the dismissiveness you've demonstrated earlier leads me to believe that you really don't have a grasp of the social issues involved -- no matter where you've lived.

I then said that since there is a clear double standard, we need to find a way to resolve this.  The two completely unbiased approaches I personally can think of are:
1)  Take down all statues.  Fuck them, we don't need them, and every statue will probably offend SOMEONE.
2)  Treat statues of famous people as protected historical artifacts, and just leave them alone.  I think the law in that state currently takes this position, actually, and that the Charlottesville city council had to do some pretty creative semantics to get around it.

Yeah, my understanding is that the law will probably need to be amended.

I've already answered your simple black-or-white nonsense, though.

I'm pretty clear, now-- are you?  Or are you going to tell me that I'm ugly and my mother dresses me funny, so my opinion is irrelevant?

Why is it so important to you that your opinion be regarded highly? Is there a better way to achieve that than tossing about the names of fallacies even as you practice them?

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, those guys can't really be defended.

And yet their monuments are, by all of the same arguments as statues of lee are defended.  They -are- hailed as heroes of the lost cause interpretation...and the savagery of the Redlegs is a particularly strong "argument" for the heroism of these men.  We've already discussed the narrative of their monuments.  Here, however, is what a monument to their union analog looks like.


The placard reads as follows;

---

---

Where is the fight for freedom, the defense of the constitution, the heroic struggle?  No, none of that, because this is a monument with actual historical value and context as regards the american civil war...rather than the civil rights movement.  It is a monument to the pointless devastation and brutality of that war, inflicted upon people of any affiliation or no affiliation..and for what?

I see, in one of Bennys responses to Thump above..that there is a notion that people argue for these statues to be removed because they are "offensive" to them.  As though this were the most pressing issue when it comes to said statues.  It is not.  They are not what they purport to be.  They do not explore our history.,..they distort them.  Their existence is not required for racists to keep thinking racist thoughts, or for racists to keep saying racist things.  Their removal, however...-is- required for us to acknowledge our actual history, and to fulfill the promise of our our own highest laws - which is exactly the fucking thing the civil war was fought over.  These things far exceed any "offense" people take at the sight of them, or at the notion of them being removed.

The acceptence of genteel bigotry was precisely what the confederacy agitated for, from the word go. Today, we see Totally Not Racists™ arguing for the same in an even more "civil" form. It's appaling. I;m just glad it;s a fuckin canandian doing it, for once, and not my cousin Cletus.

[bennyboy]

You'd said you were looking, so I said "let's see what you find." I haven't myself based my arguments on public opinion; I have only said that that might be a third way to address this issue, in addition to the two you've proposed. Now, I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but they can actually take the measure of public opinion there and elsewhere by voting. I know, shocking, right?

Not at all. I suggested that given the sensitivity of this issue, the people of Charlottesville SHOULD vote on it.

I'd say that understanding the society where this unrest is happening goes beyond understanding statues and free speech. It also involves history -- a requirement I notice you didn't mention in your listing of qualifications -- and understanding the views of those who are aggrieved. You seem pretty deficient in the latter and of uncertain qualification in the former. I don't know how long you've lived in America -- or where -- nor do I know your understanding of black culture in America. Everything I've read from you in this thread indicates you haven't learnt a damned thing about the latter, your black friends notwithstanding.

So. . . you feel I'm not a true enough Scotsman after all. Whatever.

Lookee here, the logician is practicing tu quoque. Maybe you can educate us here: which campaigns are happening towards those ends? Maybe you should start a thread about those movements? I'll happily offer my opinion. Until then, this looks an awful lot like "I don't mind statues of people which harmed my folk, therefore you should shut the fuck up about statues you don't like."

I would NEVER tell anyone to "shut the fuck up" about this so long as they are arguing a sincere opinion.

Yeah, my understanding is that the law will probably need to be amended.

I've already answered your simple black-or-white nonsense, though.

All you really had to say was "appeal to hypocrisy." But unless you are disagreeing that there's a double standard, there are the following options:
1) keep all statues on general principle-- my preferred choice because it's completely unambiguous and requires no special pleading
2) remove all statues on general principle-- a terrible choice, because it removes chance for observation and discussion about important issues
3) remove some statues on specific principles-- an understandable choice, but potentially divisive as can easily be seen right now

In the third case, measures should be taken to assure that the citizens of the city to whom the park was bequeathed actually approve of the special principle involved: in this case, that the presence of a Confederate monument on public lands in a US city is sufficiently inflammatory and hurtful that it should be removed, or placed in a museum which can establish a better historical "context."

It's my perception that many in the Southern states admire Lee and consider him worth memorializing. If so, then there's an additional question: "Are some values so important to the US that they must be adhered to despite popular opinion?" In other words, should the statue be removed EVEN IF the numerical majority of Charlottesville citizens don't want it to be?

And that, to be sure, is where the backlash lies-- that Southerners view Washington-of-the-North as overstepping its bounds in determining on their behalf what views should / shouldn't be considered acceptable to the US as a whole.

I'm pretty clear, now-- are you?  Or are you going to tell me that I'm ugly and my mother dresses me funny, so my opinion is irrelevant?

Why is it so important to you that your opinion be regarded highly? Is there a better way to achieve that than tossing about the names of fallacies even as you practice them?

There you go. . . appeal to hypocrisy. Look, there are plenty of valid arguments in support of removing the General Lee statue. But you've made a lot of points which are invalid, because they are obvious logical fallacies. If those arguments are directed at me and I notice them, I'll call them out 100% of the time, and you are free to do the same. It is only by getting past rhetorical bullshit and using logic that we can try to understand what this case is really about, and formulate decent ideas about what should be done.

[Minimalist]

Minimalist Wrote: However, I want to make this perfectly clear.  I say "DOWN WITH THE REBEL FLAG."

How many times can a guy make the "nom nom" sound in an hour? Let's find out!

---

Sadly, my rebel "yell" came out as more of a gurgle.

[The Grand Nudger]

 It is only by getting past rhetorical bullshit and using logic that we can try to understand what this case is really about, and formulate decent ideas about what should be done.

As if -that- were a subject of confusion for anyone but yourself and the other merchants of doubt?  Statue enthusiasm, Benny, your rights and violence done to ideas and the purported whitewashing of history the removal would be...including references to their historical value.... all of the rest...is rhetorical bullshit.  So let's get passed it.

 

[bennyboy]

I see, in one of Bennys responses to Thump above..that there is a notion that people argue for these statues to be removed because they are "offensive" to them.  As though this were the most pressing issue when it comes to said statues.  It is not.  They are not what they purport to be.  They do not explore our history.,..they distort them.  Their existence is not required for racists to keep thinking racist thoughts, or for racists to keep saying racist things.  Their removal, however...-is- required for us to acknowledge our actual history, and to fulfill the promise of our our own highest laws - which is exactly the fucking thing the civil war was fought over.  These things far exceed any "offense" people take at the sight of them, or at the notion of them being removed.

That's a bullshit argument. You acknowledge "actual history" by engraving a set of tablets with the Robert E. Lee wikipedia page, so people can read and understand exactly what he was, what he did, and how he's currently viewed by different segments of society.

But go ahead, tell me exactly how our accurate view of history will be enriched by removing the statue of a historical figure from public lands. So far, you haven't made this argument in a particularly compelling way.

The acceptence of genteel bigotry was precisely what the confederacy agitated for, from the word go.  Today, we see Totally Not Racists™ arguing for the same in an even more "civil" form.  It's appaling.  I;m just glad it;s a fuckin canandian doing it, for once, and not my cousin Cletus.  

Stop with this false dilemma bullshit: "Either you're against displaying a Robert E. Lee statue, or you are a bigot." That's weak.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's a bullshit argument.  You acknowledge "actual history" by engraving a set of tablets with the Robert E. Lee wikipedia page, so people can read and understand exactly what he was, what he did, and how he's currently viewed by different segments of society.

That's not what any of those statues do..and I;ve linked monuments, which do exist, that do exactly that.  They justr arent civil rights era monuments to the lie of the confederate lost cause and it;s heroic patriots.  

/ shrugs

But go ahead, tell me exactly how our accurate view of history will be enriched by removing the statue of a historical figure from public lands.  So far, you haven't made this argument in a particularly compelling way.

What statues of historical figures?  We're not discussing statues of "historical figures".  The statues we are discussing are a-hystorical and propagandizing.   

Stop with this false dilemma bullshit: "Either you're against displaying a Robert E. Lee statue, or you are a bigot."  That's weak.

Your'e the one who's manufacturing the dilemma...which is what I keep trying to stress to you.  Personally, I think that you're just another victim of the "counterculture" of white fright and grievance.  You tell me that's un-possible because you aren't a sheeple or somesuch.

[Amarok]

That's a bullshit argument.  You acknowledge "actual history" by engraving a set of tablets with the Robert E. Lee wikipedia page, so people can read and understand exactly what he was, what he did, and how he's currently viewed by different segments of society.

That's not what any of those statues do..and I;ve linked monuments, which do exist, that do exactly that.  They justr arent civil rights era monuments to the lie of the confederate lost cause and it;s heroic patriots.  

/ shrugs

But go ahead, tell me exactly how our accurate view of history will be enriched by removing the statue of a historical figure from public lands.  So far, you haven't made this argument in a particularly compelling way.

What statues of historical figures?  We're not discussing statues of "historical figures".  The statues we are discussing are a-hystorical and propagandizing.   

Stop with this false dilemma bullshit: "Either you're against displaying a Robert E. Lee statue, or you are a bigot."  That's weak.

Your'e the one who's manufacturing the dilemma...which is what I keep trying to stress to you.  Personally, I think that you're just another victim of the "counterculture" of white fright and grievance.  You tell me that's un-possible because you aren't a sheeple or somesuch.

Indeed those statues have nothing to do with history it's propaganda plain and simple. To sell a noble myth to southerners .