SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The President of the University of Texas at Austin released a letter regarding the removal of statues on the campus.
[...] The University of Texas at Austin is a public educational and research institution, first and foremost. The historical and cultural significance of the Confederate statues on our campus — and the connections that individuals have with them — are severely compromised by what they symbolize. Erected during the period of Jim Crow laws and segregation, the statues represent the subjugation of African Americans. That remains true today for white supremacists who use them to symbolize hatred and bigotry.
The University of Texas at Austin has a duty to preserve and study history. But our duty also compels us to acknowledge that those parts of our history that run counter to the university's core values, the values of our state and the enduring values of our nation do not belong on pedestals in the heart of the Forty Acres.
The issue isn't a new one, they first looked into the issue in 2015, and had a wide range of options including effectively turning the mall into an open air museum, which they eventually decided against. Should the statues be relocated from their historical context just because of the attitudes and behaviour of noisy minorities? (Your humble editor cannot forget the local riots when a historical but hostile-themed statue was relocated.)
(Score: 5, Interesting) by meustrus on Tuesday August 22 2017, @07:17PM (8 children)
"Never" is a pretty strong word. There is a case to be made that it was a bigger issue, sure, but "never about slavery" is pure historical revisionism. Revisionism by reconstruction racists who couldn't accept that they had lost, abetted by northern racists who were tired of fighting. But the reason behind the war is actually irrelevant.
Actually relevant:
Every actor of the Confederacy committed treason against the United States of America. Let that sink in. Confederate monuments are most definitely not a symbol of individual liberty. They are a symbol of treason and the right of slave-owners to commit treason to perpetuate their immoral economy.
As a symbol of the ongoing right to commit treason against the United States of America, confederate monuments glorify the slave economy and justify Jim Crow laws aimed at recreating it. They exist with the goal of revising history to act as though the South "won" and has the continued right to act against the interests of the larger United States of America. As long as they are kept as public monuments rather than objects of history, they will continue in their original purpose: to inspire the next generation to keep up the fight to maintain the trappings of the slave economy.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Entropy on Tuesday August 22 2017, @07:21PM (4 children)
Well, we committed treason against the British empire right? So there's a long standing history of treason being possibly a good thing. How about Chelsea Manning's Treason?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by rcamera on Tuesday August 22 2017, @07:44PM (3 children)
manning was found guilty and served time in a military prison until her sentence was commuted. are you suggesting his actions weren't treason? i might agree, but i'm not a member of that particular military tribunal, so my opinion is worth nothing - the same as yours.
/* no comment */
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday August 23 2017, @06:36AM
Actually it was established in the middle ages that as long as you believed you were following the legitimate monarch (government), it wasn't treason. That's why you had things like Henry Tudor back dating his crowning so he could attain the followers of Richard the 3rd with treason.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Wednesday August 23 2017, @03:29PM (1 child)
Except in this case, where for some reason the defeated were allowed to rewrite history as if they had won anyway. Probably because - and this is a dirty secret - the northerners were and are just as racist.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23 2017, @09:50PM
Wow. Projection much?
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday August 23 2017, @06:32AM (2 children)
It's not treason as long as a person is following what he considers to be the legitimate government. The Confederates (at least the common man) did believe they had a right to secede from the Union and establish their own government.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by urza9814 on Wednesday August 23 2017, @03:35PM (1 child)
They're still a defeated and occupied enemy foreign power. Do we erect statues to Hitler or Hussein? No -- we don't build them, we don't preserve them, we tear them the fuck down.
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday August 24 2017, @01:38AM
'Twas only the terminology of calling them traitors that I objected to. Too many times traitor has been used for bullshit reasons.