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.)
Related Stories
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
With Governor Roy Cooper (D) taking no action on the bill, the state of North Carolina has enacted the Restore Campus Free Speech Act, the first comprehensive campus free-speech legislation based on the Goldwater proposal. That proposal, which I [Stanley Kurtz (Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center)] co-authored along with Jim Manley and Jonathan Butcher of Arizona's Goldwater Institute, was released on January 31 and is now under consideration in several states. It's fitting that North Carolina should be the first state to enact a Goldwater-inspired law.
[...] The North Carolina Restore Campus Free Speech Act achieves most of what the Goldwater proposal sets out to do. It ensures that University of North Carolina policy will strongly affirm the importance of free expression. It prevents administrators from disinviting speakers whom members of the campus community wish to hear from. It establishes a system of disciplinary sanctions for students and anyone else who interferes with the free-speech rights of others, and ensures that students will be informed of those sanctions at freshman orientation. It reaffirms the principle that universities, at the official institutional level, ought to remain neutral on issues of public controversy to encourage the widest possible range of opinion and dialogue within the university itself. And it authorizes a special committee created by the Board of Regents to issue a yearly report to the public, the regents, the governor, and the legislature on the administrative handling of free-speech issues.
Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/450027/north-carolina-campus-free-speech-act-goldwater-proposal
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday August 22 2017, @04:42PM (49 children)
Those belong in a museum, with lengthy explanations of what they represent to both sides.
Not on public parks' tall pedestals where they only honor the subject and place him high above all.
And clearly not in the dustbin, because they do have historical value.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 22 2017, @04:54PM (44 children)
I don't mind them being in a park either because of the same reasons but yeah, they belong either there or in a museum. You don't destroy your history just because you don't like it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Immerman on Tuesday August 22 2017, @05:06PM (33 children)
The thing is, statues don't record history. Destroying them has no more effect on the historical record than keeping them around.
The entire point of their existence is to *commemorate* a person or event - i.e. to celebrate and/or express respect for them. By keeping them on public display you continue to publicly commemorate them. And if what you're commemorating them for is trying to preserve slavery... well then maybe you need to rethink your priorities.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by unauthorized on Tuesday August 22 2017, @05:50PM (18 children)
They are historic evidence, just like any artifact that archeologists manage to unearth.
Do you think that people who go to visit the pyramids are there to worship dead pharaohs? Do you think that the Kremlin is being used today to glorify the Russian monarchy?
This is a ridiculous proposition. We are under no obligation to continue using objects for their original intended purpose.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @06:20PM (2 children)
So then removing them is not a problem! Thanks for clearing that up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23 2017, @05:04AM (1 child)
Remove the pyramids? That's asinine.
So you want us to build the Trump monument so Huge that's its as difficult for philistines to remove on a whim as the pyramids?
P.S. When your government spends millions to remove statues, then I don't want to hear them bitching when they're flooded for lack of maintaining levies...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23 2017, @09:41PM
It is amusing the see the "defenders" in this thread spout amazing amounts of nonsense. Really keeps things in perspective here :)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @07:10PM (4 children)
It would be interesting if someone could point to other examples of statues put up to celebrate the losing side of a war.
Hitler? Goering? Goebbels? In Germany??
Doesn't happen.
Now, if there was a historical marker alongside the statue, which said when and where it was originally erected and when and why it was moved, THAT would give it historical context.
Historian James Loewen spoke with Pacifica Radio host Mitch Jeserich about this topic last week.
It's a 22MB MP3, available indefinitely. [kpfa.org]
Their talk is 08:10 - 56:20.
At 19:10 - 23:15, there is a particularly good portion about States Rights and how the Confederacy was -not- in favor of those (e.g. Pennsylvania's right to ignore the Fugitive Slave Act).
Very informative about the timing (1890 - 1940) of the surge in Confederate statuary and the rise in racism/segregation/Jim Crow in USA.
(Plessy v Ferguson was handed down in 1896.)
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @07:18PM (2 children)
I don't think supporters of the statues will see this bit of reason, they are emotionally impacted and feel like "whites" are under attack everywhere.
I hope we're seeing the dying throws of racism in the US. It will always be around, no country has ever eliminated it, but I'm given hope by the number of racists who truly are trying hard to not be. It would go faster if they were capable of realizing that they're in a transition phase and can't just claim they are suddenly different.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @07:51PM (1 child)
Good word.
Even better when you spell it correctly.
http://www.google.com/search?q=throes [google.com]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @10:37PM
I'm sick today, I'm glad there weren't any worse typos :D
(Score: 3, Informative) by unauthorized on Tuesday August 22 2017, @08:12PM
If you read the comment chain again, you will find the person I'm responding to makes the case that destroying these historic artifacts is okay and that their only possible function is to "celebrate" the depicted persons. I specifically addressed these two points.
I'm not addressing the subject of how they should be preserved.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday August 22 2017, @07:25PM (9 children)
That is exactly why the pyramids were originally built.
That was why it was built in the first place.
No one erected either of those structures as a matter of historical record. They were built to commemorate specific ideas, people or events. Same applies to the confederate statues. They were built because they were admired by enough people to warrant the commissioning of a statue. And you can't really compare 2000 year old tombs and defunct government buildings to people who actively fought to preserve slavery. Tell me, how many statues of Nazi officers have you found in Germany?
(Score: 1, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Tuesday August 22 2017, @08:05PM (1 child)
Speaking of pyramids and the Kremlin. There's a pyramid at the Kremlin, just outside that terrific wall they have. And you can go inside the pyramid and see Vladimir Lenin's body. Which is perfectly preserved, it's in amazing condition. And nobody says, "oh no, we can't have that radical communist revolutionary on display." They say "oh, how lifelike!" They pay their respects. And they get on with life. In a capitalist economy that is the envy of the world. 🇺🇸
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Tuesday August 22 2017, @08:15PM
More like a crony capitalist petrostate that is the bane of its people. But point taken.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by unauthorized on Tuesday August 22 2017, @08:28PM (6 children)
Yes, hence the analogy.
OP claims that the statues can only serve their original picture. My rebuttal is that they [blackseanews.net] are not there to suck Tutankhamun's metaphorical dick and therefore it is possible for an object created with the intention of sucking some historical figure's metaphorical dick to have a different significance by giving this obvious example.
I'm not. Analogies are not a direct comparisons, they are meant to establish an idea through examining the common aspects of two subjects.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @08:49PM (1 child)
Don't bother with analogies. There are many people who will suddenly pretend to not understand what an analogy is simply because their opponent in an argument uses one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23 2017, @12:21AM
I suddenly don't understand. Could you explain with a car analogy? Preferably using Volkswagens, or Ford Pharaohs?
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday August 22 2017, @08:56PM (2 children)
Buildings and massive tombs are not good analogies to monuments of actual people apart from the basic idea of it being a historical structure.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Wednesday August 23 2017, @01:18AM (1 child)
How is a massive tomb not a monument to a person?
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday August 23 2017, @12:30PM
True. My wording should have been kept the same as in a "2000 year old tomb". Long dead as well as the entire civilization.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday August 23 2017, @03:15PM
Interesting thing about the pyramids -- the Ancient Egyptians started tearing the things apart after a while. Looting the contents of the tombs and dragging the stones away to construct other buildings. It was later cultures that came through and decided what was left (which only still existed because the things were so freakin' huge to begin with) was worth preserving.
So if we want to treat these statues just like the pyramids...we should tear 'em down, send 'em to a scrapyard, and wait for future historians to find them in a few centuries.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 22 2017, @06:55PM (10 children)
That someone once celebrated a person enough to put up statues to them is extremely historically relevant. That someone created the art itself is extremely culturally relevant. If you cannot see this, do please go join ISIS and bust up someone else's history instead of ours.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @07:13PM (4 children)
It is amusing seeing the mental contortions applied to this topic.
If I had the time I would go through all previous stories and find a comment where you were dismissive about someone wanting to preserve a legacy. Hell, just the articles on the Dakota pipeline were enough. Where was this righteous outrage then? Oh right, they aren't white and they were in the way of the white man's agendas. Here we have a public majority supporting these actions and suddenly you're all protective of the poor persecuted minority. You align yourself with racists, and if you're tired of such accusations then stop defending them! You deny racism all the time, proclaim how tolerant you are of everything, but when it comes down to it you only get outraged when white people are under attack.
#SAD
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 22 2017, @07:35PM (3 children)
Go through all the stories you want. You won't find me arguing what you want to find me arguing.
And you say I'm the racist? Here's a clue, short bus, attacking white people for being white is racist. Period. That you don't see me ranting on about how any other racial group is currently being oppressed or persecuted is simple: they're not. Racism only goes one direction in this country in any significant way right now, straight towards white people.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday August 22 2017, @09:34PM (1 child)
> Racism only goes one direction in this country in any significant way right now, straight towards white people.
You're trolling better when you leave some room for interpretation, rather than go for blatant falsehoods.
When even Chinese people, in California, are complaining about the jump in racist behaviors towards them, and you know they get a tiny fraction of the shit that Brown/Black people get, you know your assesment is really far off the mark.
The white man is a punching bag, and out of media fashion, but we're still in charge.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 23 2017, @12:41PM
Self-hating fool. Sigh.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @10:34PM
Ah yes, I was imprecise:
Aside from the edge cases of violence at protests and such (which happens on one side more than another, but we can skip that) white people are in no way under attack. Get rid of the persecution complex.
Holy fucking shit. You just put the nail in the coffin pal, shortbus indeed.
So first we had racism, and it sucked. Then we had counter racism which did not help and made the problem worse. Now we're at counter counter racism... fucking hell, you morons need to grow a pair and start looking into Buddhism.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Tuesday August 22 2017, @07:34PM (4 children)
When you put it that way, I guess one point of view would be to archive that statement and document the specifics for the statue in question. Unless the actual physical object is also of relevance (which it might be).
(Score: 2, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 22 2017, @07:39PM (3 children)
Historical art shouldn't be destroyed just because it's not popular. Its history is our history, good or bad. If it's currently too offensive to some fragile little snowflakes to stand looking at it, box it up and save it for posterity when you can again teach the children of this nation the truth about it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @10:43PM (2 children)
Alright, time to address your inherent insanity of the day.
So not only did the article state that these statues would go into a museum (did you even RTFA?) but there was zero mention of destruction. Your brain is out of whack due to its emotionally triggered state brought on by "muh statooos!"
I'm not surprised you project your own issues outward with statements like "fragile little snowflakes", I think you'd have a full blown panic attack if you were capable of realizing that you are one of the biggest snowflakes around here that hides behind a shield of bravado. Try being human, flaws and all it is a much better experience than being a sentient animal at the mercy of every hormone and survival based neural pathway.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 23 2017, @12:44PM (1 child)
I think your reading comprehension is lacking. You are seeing an argument with their actions where there is none. I was agreeing with what they did, dipshit.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23 2017, @03:47PM
Go back to school, you obviously need to take some courses on writing. You seem unable to clearly state your meaning and repeatedly have to clarify what you meant.
(Score: 2) by stretch611 on Tuesday August 22 2017, @09:34PM (1 child)
Actually, while far from a complete historical record, many statues do have a paragraph or two explaining the historical significance of the person depicted.
A much as I find it unlikely, I completely agree with TMB on this one... <shudders>
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @10:59PM
In case you miss my other comment I'd like to reiterate that no one is destroying the statues. For the ones in this article they are being relocated to a museum, and some even put on display elsewhere.
I did a quick search and all I could find was some people being charged with vandalism for pulling down a statue and another fact checking some #fakenews to point out that statues were not destroyed but simply removed. I'm shocked, SHOCKED that TMB might be a sucker for alt-right propaganda.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23 2017, @06:20PM
" And if what you're commemorating them for is trying to preserve slavery"
this was propaganda at the time and is propaganda now. if the south would have tried to forcibly retain the north in a union they could have done just like the north and abolished slavery out of political convenience(assuming they had a replacement like the north did) and then used the children in the factories as their excuse and all the brainwashed fucks today would be whinging about the statues of union statesmen who symbolized the oppression of children. you people are as dumb as the propagandists think you are.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @05:07PM (7 children)
Pffft, apologist crap. The statues are not history and the subjects are already in history books. Your comment really sheds light on the complex interplay within your brain:
"I'm not racist, but for some strange reason I just really need to defend racists. Except not. God I need a therapist!"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @06:09PM
Mod down if you'd like, but the contradictory elements are obvious for anyone to see. I have met quite a few closet bigots, most of the time their negative tendencies are left overs from their upbringing. It takes generations for such institutionalized hatred to wash out, and hopefully we're seeing one of the last major revivals right now. Seriously, comments like TMBs are along the lines of the guys screaming "I'm not racist" while they protest right along KKK members. Perhaps they are not racists, but their close friendships with full blown nazis puts them smack in the middle of the dark gray area. This isn't complicated, unless you have some massive paradoxes stored in your brain, then the obvious truth becomes so much harder to perceive.
In this instance, there is obviously validity to the idea that the Civil War was about more than slavery, but using those less relevant facts to pretend that confederate statues not about slavery and racism is dumb. Stupid. Moronic. Retarded. Crazy. Willfully ignorant. Brainwashed. Apologist bullshit.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 22 2017, @06:58PM (5 children)
Sorry, not a good enough troll to get anything more than this as a response. Keep trying though. One day you may have the skills to start a flamewar over emacs vs vi.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @07:05PM (4 children)
The Mighty Troll can't even distinguish a real comment from a troll comment, I guess you've spent too much time in the trenches. Since you can't muster up a defense I'll just presume your psyche crumbled under the pressure.
(Score: 2, Redundant) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 22 2017, @07:40PM (3 children)
Pssst... If it wasn't even a good troll then it logically follows that it was an absolutely abysmal argument.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @10:55PM (2 children)
I see, you thought this was a debate. Incorrect, my statement was an observation based on your past and current commentary. Your brain is stuck in some convoluted loop that runs through some logical and some emotional regions, can't see the forest for the trees.
From what I've seen I wouldn't expect you to be full blown racist, just that awkward in between where you say shit that is borderline and are easily persuaded by racist agendas as long as they have a "logical" underpinning that lets you pretend race/bigotry isn't the actual issue. For someone not stuck like you are it is easy to tell the difference. I can talk to someone that isn't emotionally involved with immigration and have a productive conversation, but talking to a typical conservative it becomes an emotional conversation since they've been programmed for xenophobia.
Based on your libertarian ideology and posts here I would say you are in the transition state, and I hope you have the courage to keep challenging your own preconceptions.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 23 2017, @12:46PM (1 child)
See, that was better. Too obvious now though. You should have opened with something like that. I might have bitten.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23 2017, @03:49PM
Whatever you say guy. Therapy, think about it.
(Score: 5, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Tuesday August 22 2017, @07:34PM (1 child)
This vandalism is very troubling. I see it going on and I'm very worried by it. They vandalized the statues of President Saddam Hussein, who was elected several times with over 99% of the vote. A big, big mandate from the voters. He was so popular, nobody ran against him. Because nobody had a chance against such a popular leader. And the people of Iraq were grateful for the terrific things he did. They put up statues everywhere. But look at what happened. The vandals came and tore down the statues. With total disrespect. Egregious! And I ask you this, I ask you this: if they vandalize the statues of such an amazingly popular President, what's next? Whose statues will they destroy next? Is any President's legacy safe? The vicious alt-left wouldn't tear down the statues of Barack Hussein Obama, but they're normalizing vandalism. So don't be surprised, globalist liberals, when the Obama statues fall to the ground. 🇺🇸
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday August 23 2017, @12:12AM
So true. And those same vandals, after heroic American soldiers rescued President Hussein [wixstatic.com] from an underground bunker, tried, convicted and hanged that most popular of Iraqi leaders. Sad!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday August 22 2017, @05:05PM
Reminds me of this:
http://archive.is/jtmuc [archive.is]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @05:49PM (1 child)
You are a clown, I offer no evidence of what makes you a clown or how you being a clown is relevant to anything, but these are the times we live in so wear your label proudly (note: clowns are not people and you should always punch a clown). How does a clown get to tell vast majority of people what they can and cannot do with their recreational areas(without winning an election in a landslide thus having a mandate)?
What we are seeing is a classic manufactured outrage of the regressive-left. Started with rape culture almost 2 decades ago, all of a sudden, overnight, RAPE was everywhere. Now we have racism, RACISM is everywhere! Like everything else the regressives do, this too shall fail.
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Wednesday August 23 2017, @04:41AM
That's very, very true. I never heard anything about racism until 2015. When I ran very successfully for President. All of a sudden it's racist this, racism that. Daily conversations, and some vicious attacks, about something that I was never aware of until then. Something that was very rare until then. And didn't exist when America was great. In the early 50s. 🇺🇸
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday August 22 2017, @06:42PM
Is an open-air museum not a museum?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Entropy on Tuesday August 22 2017, @05:13PM (44 children)
They are a piece of history. The civil war was never about slavery: The north tried to entice the south back into the union with the assurance slavery would continue. When that failed, and fearing France would ally with the South because of their superior textile industries the north took a stance against slavery to prevent French aide to the south.
It's nice to think it was all about slavery, but it really wasn't. Also, there were black slave owners.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @05:20PM (4 children)
Mmmhmmm, would you like some pills with that crazy?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @05:22PM (3 children)
http://www.snopes.com/facts-about-slavery/ [snopes.com]
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @05:48PM (2 children)
ZOMG SLAVERY WASN'T ONLY A WHITE PEOPLE THING ZOMGZOMGZOMG!
Yeah, that 100% invalidates taking down the statues, or that slave owners were overwhelmingly white. This is like the historical version of "one of my good friends is black". Go try and pawn your shit on some other gullible lawn ornaments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @06:11PM (1 child)
I just offered some facts and said nothing about statues. You sound triggered.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @07:25PM
Ah yes, I see I did not include enough information. The "crazy pills" are for anyone who tries to downplay slavery and pretend like it wasn't the foremost reason for the Civil War. Perhaps you were only being informative, but in the context it comes off as apologetic bullshit by claiming it couldn't be all about slavery since some black people owned slaves.
So, were you just trying to share some historically accurate information? Or was that info supposed to validate the claim that the statues should be kept up?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Virindi on Tuesday August 22 2017, @05:24PM (8 children)
This isn't completely accurate, comon. While there were multiple issues involved, and different demographics were motivated by different reasons, one motivation was definitely slavery.
The north was crawling with hardcore abolitionists and the south's economic base was built on plantations. The platform of the Republican party was all about abolition, and if you look at what was said in debates over secession a fear that Lincoln would force abolition at a federal level was front and center.
But in addition, it was a matter of honor to both sides. Plenty of southerners with no personal stake in the institution of slavery fought on the side of the Confederacy. Some slaves even continued to help out the Confederate cause when given the chance to escape.
So yes, it was way more complex than just slavery. But slavery was a big part of it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Entropy on Tuesday August 22 2017, @05:28PM (7 children)
Yes, the motivations were complex--I agree. But we're trying to revise history here by making it into this:
North: No slaves.
South: Slaves.
And based on that absurdity remove a bunch of monuments for no legitimate reason, pissing off a whole lot of people for no legitimate reason. There's really a lot better things to be doing with our time.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @05:54PM (6 children)
Few things in life are so clear cut. Every major event in human history has a ton of aspects, but they almost always get boiled down to the most important bits. Slavery was THE most important aspect of the Civil War, and yes there are nuances to be learned for anyone interested in such specifics. The Venn diagram of confederate defenders has a massive overlap with racists / white supremacists. Ignore if you want, no one else is going to join you in your stupidity.
Yes I will use insults, this apologist shit is getting old. Move the fuck on and stop trying to defend obviously racist bullshit. Perhaps if these statues weren't erected during the heights of segregation... but they were, so fuck off with your personal agenda.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @06:16PM (1 child)
And fuck off with yours too.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @06:32PM
Need a hug? Is it rough being a despised minority? I'll try and maintain some compassion, just enough to stop any violence against you. But enjoy the social effects of being/defending bigotry.
(Score: 3, Informative) by mhajicek on Tuesday August 22 2017, @08:10PM (1 child)
No. Federal authority vs states rights was the most important issue, and everyone lost.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23 2017, @03:22AM
Yep, better them darkies were still slaves than that the federal government step in to enforce the ideals of the country. Let me guess, we all lost again when Ike sent federal troops to Little Rock.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23 2017, @06:30PM (1 child)
another yankee fuck telling people to move on while you go around bringing up old shit to use brainwashed idiots for political gain. the statues represent the men that fought for their homeland and it's sovereignty. racism and slavery were part of the culture then. just like racism and working people to death in the factories were part of the north's "evil" culture. no one is denying it. that's the way things were then. now southerners' heritage is outlawed because the way things were then hurts someone's feelings? fuck you, you stupid bitch.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 24 2017, @03:06AM
So we should leave the statues up so that your precious widdle feewings don't get hurt? Irony is a bitch and it's riding you hard.
(Score: 5, Informative) by https on Tuesday August 22 2017, @06:20PM (6 children)
You're as wrong as it's possible to be.
https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states [civilwar.org]
Georgia: First paragraph, immediately following the statement of secession: slavery.
Mississippi: Second paragraph, immediately following the statement of secession: slavery.
South Carolina: This one seems to have been written by someone paid per word. After extensive explanation as to why they believe they have the authroity to secede, complain about slaves trying to escape "justice" by crossing borders and how the northern states should stick to the original deal of returning them. And so on. And on. And on.
Texas: "[Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time."
Virginia: Open paragraph compliant leading up to declaration of secession: "...not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States." [ emphasis added by ~https]
So, kindly shut up until you're ready to act like you have the reading comprehension of a teenager. The civil war was all about slavery.
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday August 22 2017, @07:21PM (2 children)
Yes, you are. Saying the Civil War was about slavery is roughly the same as saying the American Revolution was about tea. It was the straw that broke the camel's back in regards to the illegal power grabbing of the federal government but that's all it was. Unless... Are you really foolish enough to believe that slavery was ended with the Emancipation Proclamation legally or that the Thirteenth Amendment was passed in a legal manner?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @07:36PM (1 child)
I don't remember reading anything about tea in the Declaration of Independence. It's been a while since I read it in full, however.
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Thursday August 24 2017, @09:35AM
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Libertea and the pursuit of Happiness."
Check and Mate.
(Score: 2) by stretch611 on Tuesday August 22 2017, @11:46PM (2 children)
And of course, back then, like now, the affluent had the time to become the politicians because, well, ofc, the working man had to work for a living.
So the people writing these statements were the wealthy plantation owners that loved slavery because it was hugely profitable.
As with most wars, the enlisted men during the civil war were not the wealthy... yet they fought anyway. Do you think the average soldier did so to protect slavery? I doubt it, they weren't making any money off of it. Many of them did so to protect their state's sovereign rights. (or because they had little choice; i.e. go and fight for us or die now)
I am not saying that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery, but to act as it was the only thing is ignorant as hell.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23 2017, @01:02PM (1 child)
So Johnny Reb didn't have the free time to philosophize about the moral implications of slavery, but did have time to contemplate the nature of states' rights vs. fed government. I think I understand why your user name is stretch.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23 2017, @06:39PM
fair point, but i think you can imagine what the common thought process was like. it's just like now. the newspaper told them stories about northern aggression (substitute iraq, north korea, whatever other BS) and control and they wanted to fight for their independence/defend their homeland. It would have been pretty easy to sell the protection of slavery to someone who might have job/social competition otherwise. that's what happened once they were freed and what fueled the social unrest like jim crow and the kkk. fighting amoungst the poor over the scraps from the fat cats who had pitted them against each other. now we're supposed to demonize one side and chant together like assimilated drones or fight over it like hyenas? false choice, man!
(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.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @07:45PM
The claim is that the American Civil war was about States' Rights.
That is true in a weird sort of way.
The South got all pissed off when northern states claimed States' Rights in refusing to obey the federal law which said that folks in those states had to help return escaped slaves to anyone who claimed a black person present in one of those states as his property.
Note here that a black person wasn't allowed to give testimony in a court, even in his own defense, refuting the white guy's claim.
Up in the (meta)thread, I linked to an excellent KPFA presentation on this.
...and it's interesting how The Confederate Conscription Act exempted from serving in the army anyone who owned at least 20 slaves. [google.com]
...and for each additional 20 slaves owned, 1 more white guy residing at/working on that estate could be exempted.
"Never about slavery"?? Don't be ridiculous.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(A Southerner who left The South.)
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @07:55PM
Not about slavery? Hmmm, better tell that to the four states that had formal declarations as to why they left. Starting with Mississippi:
And to South Carolina:
And Georgia:
And Texas:
(Score: 2) by Sulla on Tuesday August 22 2017, @08:23PM (9 children)
I somewhat disagree. I see a huge difference between removing a statue of Lee (A person of significance to the Republic before and after the Civil War) and a statue of Jefferson Davis. Davis was an embodiment of the rebellion where as Lee was a man caught up in it. As the war inched nearer Lincoln went to Lee (instead of Lee being requested to go to Lincoln) to ask whether or not he would be willing to lead the Union army, Lee said that his fate was entirely dependent on whether or not Virginia chose to secede.
I would suggest visiting the wiki on Lee quotes https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee, [wikiquote.org] some examples. Pretty interesting read.
I do like the idea that in the instance of offending statues in public areas that they be moved to a museum, but destruction is a dangerous prescient. Of course if this is the case I expect the statues of Lenin to be moved as well.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 1, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Tuesday August 22 2017, @09:13PM
It's a very bad president, I agree it's a dangerous one. First they came for President Jefferson Davis and General Robert E. Lee. And I asked what's next. Are President Thomas Jefferson and General George Washington next, I asked. A question, but also a warning. And just like I said, they're coming after the Jefferson Memorial. To make it politically correct. Read it on Milo News: https://milo.yiannopoulos.net/2017/08/jefferson-memorial-to-be-altered-to-appease-leftists/ [yiannopoulos.net] 🇺🇸
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @09:19PM (6 children)
Your ignorance of Jefferson Davis is showing.
He was a US Congressman, US Secretary of War, and US Senator.
Both he and Lee were traitors and -that- is what should go at the top of every bio about them/plaque mentioning them.
...and, yes, where someone is considered significant enough to have a statue of him/her erected, there should be a historical marker beside that saying WHY that person was significant.
...and stop putting up statues to folks on the losing side of a war.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday August 22 2017, @09:56PM (5 children)
I mean, by that reasoning George Washington and the rest of the Founding Fathers were traitors, too. Difference is, they won.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Tuesday August 22 2017, @10:26PM (1 child)
They were traitors, they won, and it was a wonderful, wonderful thing. Which the alt-left wants us to erase. They want us to forget that a traitor can win hugely and do great things for a country. 🇺🇸
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23 2017, @12:24AM
That is so true [google.com], mein Fuhrer! [google.com]
Sieg Heil! [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @11:10PM (2 children)
George Washington, et al., were about less Authoritarianism[1] in government.
Slavery is all about Authoritarianism/oppression.
By the 1860s, it was way past time for civilized countries to dump that anachronism, as they had dumped monarchy.[2]
...and the Founding Fathers knew full well what the consequences of failure would be. [google.com]
[1] OK, so we wound up with a bunch of rich guys in charge and well over half the population disenfranchised.
Hey, everything is relative.
...and a lot of that stuff has seen major improvements in the ensuing years.
[2] In the nutty-as-a-fruitcake department, The Orange Clown is giving King George III a run for his money for the top spot.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday August 23 2017, @06:45AM
George Washington was a land developer who was all about stealing land from savages and getting rich. In 1763, the tyrant said that all his subjects were equal and to stop stealing land. (Not to mention letting those awful Papists hold office), which upset many colonists who thought that they had a God given right to that land that was occupied by heathen savages.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday August 23 2017, @04:02PM
I mean, Italy was still a monarchy until slightly after the end of WWII (Victor Emmanuel III eventually dismissed Mussolini). And Britain is still debatably one. Several European countries like Belgium, Norway, and Montenegro had kings during WWII (or at least did until Germany invaded them).
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @09:21PM
http://www.google.com/search?q=precedent [google.com]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Tuesday August 22 2017, @09:29PM
Yes it was:
- The Confederate states and leaders were quite clear that they were fighting to preserve slavery, right up until the day after they lost. Just read the original documents provided by each of the seceding states explaining why they were seceding, or the speeches by Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stevens if you have any doubts about that. Robert E Lee, a not-at-all-kindly slaveowner, was clear about why he fought until the day he died.
- The Union position was a bit more complicated. Lincoln's two aims at the beginning of the war were reuniting the United States, and ending the expansion of slavery. He was willing at the start of the war to allow slavery to continue where it already existed for the short term at least. It was in the middle of the war, when Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, Missouri, and West Virginia were firmly in Union military control and in the aftermath of the Union victory at Antietam, that it became a war to end slavery.
Historians are in wide agreement about this. The reason that the popular imagination has a different view of it has a lot more to do with what happened in the south decades after the Civil War was over.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @09:40PM
"Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Tuesday August 22 2017, @05:33PM (4 children)
I'm of multiple minds about this. In no particular order:
- Culture has changed, and continues to change. Maybe there are chapters in history we no longer want on public display, fair enough.
- There are different subcultures. The statues represent different things to different people. Some surveys have shown that a minority of poeple (even a minority of black people) think of the statues as "white supremacist". Why let a few extremists (on either side) drive the perceptions of a whole country?
- History happened. More: someone, sometime, thought it worth erecting these statues, and that is also part of history. It behooves us to understand history, but that isn't happening here (see next point).
- People do not know their own history. Take Robert E. Lee as an example, since one of his statues was recently torn down. The Union offered him a position as a general, but his loyalties were with his state: Virginia. Virginia did not secede with the South. Virginia seceded later, when the North attacked the South, because Virginia believed that secession was an inherent right, and disagreed with the North playing tyrant. Lee went with his State. So the picture of him fighting for slavery is flawed, at best - it would be better to say that he (and Virginia) fought for a particular interpretation of the Constitution.
But complex stories don't fit in headlines. Certain groups are driving this story, and keeping it focused on race, just as they have done with previous issues. When the statues are gone, the organizations behind this (SPLC, BLM, etc.) will find the next issue, and the next. It's not about statues, or names of sports teams, or justice, or equality, or any of that. These organizations have long succumbed to Pournelle's Iron Law, and this is all about money and political power.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @05:52PM (3 children)
"- Culture has changed, and continues to change. Maybe there are chapters in history we no longer want on public display, fair enough."
BULLSHIT. Even if culture has changed, it has not changed to what is being portrayed in the media and social media by hysterical, whinney, entitled, brats. Yelling loudest doesn't make you the majority, it just makes you an asshole.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @06:25PM
Your insults clearly indicate the amount of kool-aid you've been drinking.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @10:28PM
You'll be glad to know that the white supremacist rally in Boston was a fizzle.
The ratio of Civil Libertarians to bigots was 40,000:50. [google.com]
The cops feared for the safety of the Alt-Reich and put them in vans to get them out of the area.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23 2017, @07:31AM
Another event, this time in Laguna Beach, CA.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]