Aug 15, 2017 you would be wrong ahhhh yes - of course this is your response. ("EVERYTHING IS HITLER") lazy thinking paulette! I shouldn't have to relitigate the Civil War with you lol (tho maybe... you are an immigrant afterall.....) fact is these statues are commemorating american war heroes with specific local ties, in most cases. i dont want to speak for them, but i imagine most of these soldiers were fighting the (also racist) north for political and economic rationales that went beyond "derrrr.... we love slavery". and even if they did, plenty of us presidents owned slaves, supported the institution etc. it's just whitewashing history, its culturally insulting and v v thick. (that said: if a community CHOOSES to remove the statues, fine! but increasingly thats not the case, particularly here.) mob rule is never a good thing, even if it is "understandable" [insert sanctimonious "it was understandable what happened to germany after the heavy post-WWI sanctions"]] it'd be one thing if it were a predominantly black crowd, frankly. but - so typical - the video i watched was a bunch of nauseauting white kids getting all riled up on behalf of experiences they claim to understand, but probably don't.
Aug 15, 2017 This reads a tad bit like revionist history ("civil war wasn't fought over slavery!"). I know you don't think that but that's how it comes off. Most of these statues are of confederate generals/leaders who very well had slavery in mind. That's not to say maybe the ordinary confederate soldier were fighting for other reasons. Nonetheless they were still traitors. They are being used as icons of hated & that's a good enough reason for me to put them away in museums.
Aug 15, 2017 I'm leaning on the side of "These statues should be removed". I'm not saying we should ignore/forget history, but we also shouldn't honor certain people from the past, either.
Aug 15, 2017 It isn't at all though. Understanding the rationale behind the Civil War isn't merely racists v. non-racists is pretty standard. Not revisionist whatsoever. Again a gross oversimplification of the conflict and why it was fought. I mentioned former presidents who had pro-slavery sympathies. You know I don't need to start rattling off examples for why this is a slippery slope. Not sure why we need to use this word choice in 2017. Traitors against the federal government I guess -- but in these communities, these people are being celebrated for standing up to 'northern aggression'. I assume you know this, you don't have to do any intellectual martial arts to understand their POV. More rhetoric. I think it's clearly about remembering the past.
Aug 15, 2017 Not racist v. non-racist but rather pro-slavery v. Anti-slavery. Read any of the secession papers from the southern states & they make it clear that slavery was their driving force to action. The south wanted to keep their economy [that was dependent on slavery] in tact. If you wanna chalk that up as "economic rationale" fine but it's connected to slavery & doesn't make their moral case any better. States began to seceded right after Lincoln won the election in 1860 while running on a platform to keep slavery out of the new territories. I don't think it's an oversimplification. People have always been judged in history based on the time period they lived in. Yes, past presidents had slaves & supported the institution but during a time that it was deemed acceptable. When the country was ready to move on, the south refused & wanted to continue to make money at the cost of enslaving people. That's the difference. confederates fired the first shots @ fort sumter which started the war. I don't understand why that POV is still being held in 2017. It's a good thing that the confederates lost. That can't be done in a museum...?
Aug 15, 2017 You know, everybody has a heritage about them and people tend to define identity using the past .Maybe these people see your attempts to paint over history as an attempt to undermine their identity. Now you want to make the argument that a southern identity is inherently racist. But that's exactly the problem. You can't take a small portion of the past and use that to attack an entire identity, and this is what these people are fighting against. Some of your founding fathers owned slaves yet you still use them as a guidepost to define america as a country. That is why they call themselves "pro-white". They are defending an identity. The counter argument to this appears as, "Your identity is oppressive", because the icons of their heritage had differences the modern demographic no longer shares. The problem with that is that you can't define something as passive and abstract as identity as being oppressive. And you trying to physical erase these people's culture makes you the oppressive force. This is why CNN thinks neutrality is against the left wing. Because the left wing is acting directly against the pro-white protesters. They are the agressors here.
Aug 15, 2017 I think that makes a huge difference though. Flip it around - the north doesn't really have the moral high ground. They just happened to benefit from the industrial revolution sooner for a variety of economic reasons. Again, no need to get wayyyyy kneedeep into the history *here* of all places, but suffice to say there's more to it than "the south was pro slavery bc they were mean and racist and the end" I disagree with this-- it's just wrong. The country wasn't "ready to move on" - you're butchering a lot of history here, man. The presidents who owned slaves include: -Tyler (1841–45) -Polk (1845–49) -Taylor (1849–50 - owned slaves WHILE in office) Johnson and Grant were president after Lincoln... they owned slaves. So we aren't just talking Washington (though even 1790-1860... isn't a large gap lol.) Just saying: lets not misconstrue the cultural attitudes toward slavery here within the immediate years leading up to, and even after the Civil War. I don't want to lose the thread here though - there's simply a degree of complexity here than either one of us is rly acknowledging. I believe the war of northern aggression refers to a few things, including Sherman's march to the sea and the north's, you know, invasion. It's important to understand the right historical context to fully appreciate their whole cultural attitude. I don't share it -- but there's a reason why reasonable, decent southern voters (who might vote democratic) get alienated. Sure, but did you study Museum Studies in college? Why is this your call? If a southern city wants to honor a hometown soldier/military leader -- even if he, an American, fought for the confederacy - then went onto becoming, idk, an elected official... why can't they? I just want to emphasize there's plenty of rationale that went into the Civil War: tariffs, states rights, industrialism, land, etc. Yes, slavery was a factor but there were so many cultural and economic factors culminating lol. whew
Aug 15, 2017 @WPG look at me. we are maybe in agreement on the majority of recent US military action being ill-conceived, immoral, wrong. should we not have a vietnam war memorial? think about how savage we treated the NLF, how inherently racist our actions were. in fact, by contrast, these statues commemorate individuals. this is what separates the debate around the statues -- artifacts from the past -- with the confederate flag, which is an active cultural symbol. the flag conveys an idea, whereas, imo, the statues are stationary representations of regional figures.
Aug 15, 2017 The only statues we have in Anchorage are of Alaskan Native people, MLK Jr. and WW2 fighter pilots that defended the territory of Alaska against Imperial Japan... So probably not.
Aug 15, 2017 Who's trying to paint over history? They're choosing to to use this "small portion of the past" as a form of southern identity – no one is forcing them to fly confederate flags. I believe the south is rich in culture beyond just the confederacy but a lot of southerners choose to focus on that time period in history. When you do that, you take the bad with the good & unfortunately for them the bad is really bad. No one is trying to erase anything. Putting statues in museums is the exact opposite of that.
Aug 15, 2017 I understand that a lot of Confederate soldiers were just poor ordinary people in the South who had loyalty to their land and wanted to help their region secede because they felt that the North was ignoring their economical problems at the moment and the cultural and economical difference were massive at the time so it made sense that they'd rather go with the Confederacy rather than ally with the Union, doesn't take away the fact that they're traitors
Aug 15, 2017 I don't think the confederates are morally inferior to the modern american state and you guys fly american flags all the while. What if native Americans wanted to change the american flag, because the different states were formed on the graves of thier ancestors. Would that be justification for altering the identity of the majority because of the 'feelings' of a minority?
Aug 15, 2017 That's the thing, that isn't the identity that they defend. Slavery is simply the stick used to beat these people.
Aug 15, 2017 So, the side of killing American soldiers and shooting cannon balls through American homes?
Aug 15, 2017 Interesting point...Only thing you can do is live in an area where there are like minded ppl or you'll have to fight...Just like the north and the south...Things will change but not for a longgg time
