Gov. Northam D-Va. in Blackface?

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

You said "In contrast, its Dems leading the charge to revise / erase history by insisting that Confederate military statues must be torn down." This conservative meme belies the fact that these statues were not erected for educational or historical purposes. They were erected during the Jim Crow era with the express purpose of reasserting white supremacy and promoting the Lost Cause of the Confederacy (which itself is revisionist history).

Well, that's the Southern Poverty Law Center's conclusion. I don't think anyone - except maybe some of the inhabitants of this forum - would regard the SPLC as a reliable, unbiased source of historical fact. Could be that the SPLC wants to rewrite the history of the Jim Crowe era because it was the Southern Democrats who were running that show?

Sensibilities about history, and certain people's role in history, change over time. There's nothing new about this. There's nothing new about tearing down statues and likenesses of historical figures, whether its here in the US or elsewhere in the world. Statues are symbols. To some they commemorate and to some they glorify.

However, there's no question that in the wake of the destruction and tearing down of historically relevant statues and monuments, a certain amount of historical revisionism takes place.

Yet, the very reasons for the Civil War are still debated today. To many, both historical scholars and non-scholars, the war was only about slavery, and those folks are likely to view Southern politicians and military figures through the lens of race. Yet, records from that time indicate that while preservation of the institution of slavery was not always the primary reason cited by some of the states that seceded.

Robert E Lee - reasonable example of this. Many view him as a racist slave owner. Yet his history and writings reveal a bit more complexity. I think the rush to remove him from history is short-sighted.

Similarly, some might remove Byrd from history, or at least remove his name from Federal buildings. Is that the right course, or is it a wrong-headed attempt to erase lessons that could be learned from someone whose history might be a bit more complex to other folks.

Similarly, is the desire to throw Northam under the bus driven by the revelations his actions in the 1980's which are abhorent based on today's sensibilities, or because those actions came to light at a time that might be politically inconvenient? Do we need to throw anyone who has ever dressed up in blackface under the bus too (as images continue to surface of prominent celebs who have dressed up in blackface)?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Well, that's the Southern Poverty Law Center's conclusion...

Read a little real history and you'll better understand the story of the erection of these statues (and is has nothing to do with the teaching of history (other than a longer for an earlier time when blacks were still enslaved)). It's obvious from the rest of your post that you know essentially nothing about the history of the Civil War, reconstruction and the Jim Crow era.

From a southern perspective, the Civil War was indeed primarily about slavery. From the Union side, it was primarily about maintaining the Union. The South Carolina secession proclamation cited its cause as “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery” and an unwillingness of northern states to uphold the Fugitive Slave Act. The Mississippi proclamation stated “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of the commerce of the earth. . . . A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.” All the other written justifications from seceding states said much the same thing.

You'd be wise not to start arguing Civil War history until you're far better informed. Start by reading both Bruce Catton's and Shelby Foote's Civil War trilogies. It seems you know even less about the Civil War than you know about economics (and that's saying something).

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Read a little real history and you'll better understand the story of the erection of these statues (and is has nothing to do with the teaching of history (other than a longer for an earlier time when blacks were still enslaved)). It's obvious from the rest of your post that you know essentially nothing about the history of the Civil War, reconstruction and the Jim Crow era.

From a southern perspective, the Civil War was indeed primarily about slavery. From the Union side, it was primarily about maintaining the Union. The South Carolina secession proclamation cited its cause as “an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery” and an unwillingness of northern states to uphold the Fugitive Slave Act. The Mississippi proclamation stated “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of the commerce of the earth. . . . A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.” All the other written justifications from seceding states said much the same thing.

You'd be wise not to start arguing Civil War history until you're far better informed. Start by reading both Bruce Catton's and Shelby Foote's Civil War trilogies. It seems you know even less about the Civil War than you know about economics (and that's saying something).

Um, did you even read my post? You might want to actually read what I wrote before you start you soliloquy.

I didn't state what I believed. I simply stated that there's no universal agreement.

Sometimes I think you'd argue with a doorknob if you thought it could bring you joy. In the case of some of your posts, I suspect it might actually be more entertaining to listen to a doorknob than read them.