Monuments and Myths
 

Ken Burns: Our monuments are representations of myth, not fact
Our most venerated monuments represent a mythology. While we may hope the statue represents our highest aspirations of what America can and should be. It also can be a reminder of where and how far we fall short.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video...6c2_video.html

MBCB Statement on Flag
Mississippi Baptist Convention Board gave a statement on the Mississippi State Flag at a press conference on June 23, 2020.

https://vimeo.com/431964145

“While some may see the current flag as a celebration of heritage, a significant portion of our state sees it as a relic of racism and a symbol of hatred. The racial overtones of this flag’s appearance make this discussion a moral issue.”

Walmart stops displaying the Mississippi state flag in stores because of Confederate flag imagery

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/23/busin...ate/index.html

Why the 'romance' of plantation estates is more dangerous than confederate statues

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...derate-statues

Does Auschwitz still stand? Do people still visit it?

Why is that?

The night they’ll tear old Dixie down
For generations, a single street paying homage to Robert E. Lee and his Confederate allies has upheld Richmond’s racist foundations. Change is coming.

https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/21...m-george-floyd

Nazis, again, from you.

Deflection. I did not mention Nazis. I mentioned the preservation of a place where very bad things happened to people at the hands of other people.

The question is, why does it still stand? Why do they not tear it down? Why do they not erase the history?

There Are No Nostalgic Nazi Memorials
Americans could learn from how drastically German society has moved away from the nadir of its history.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...orials/597937/

Some here would, though, obviously. Disgusting.

I seriously doubt that.

They have some civil war memorials here where i live and even have CW re-enactments in Perryville, near where I live. They do historical justice to what was going on on and around the battlefield. It's really quite a thing to experience and I highly recommend it. It was very powerful for me when I first saw it, being from Seattle. But it does not glorify slavery or the battle itself. It was a bloody mess - and that is the story they tell.

Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben deserve retirement. They're racist myths of happy Black servitude.
The mascots were intended to let white consumers indulge in a fantasy of enslaved people as submissive, self-effacing, loyal and contentedly pacified.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...hs-ncna1231623

Reich-wing talking points for real now!

You like pretending the camps glorify Nazis, don't you!

That must be deflection and projection. I honestly don't know where you even got that from. You remind me of the guy that was voting for Obama because he was black, telling me I was voting against him because he's black, even though I've never voted for a democrat presidential candidate in my entire life, 66 years.

So yeah. You're pulling that accusation out of your butt, not my post.

You mentioned Auschwitz and are now spinning away by referrng to it as "a place." Pretty sure most directly associate Auschwitz with Nazi.

The only thing I can't be sure of, NI, is whether you don't know what you're doing repeating this meme, or whether you do. That is, whether you're just repeating because you're a negligent dumbshit, or whether you are knowingly promoting evil. I mean, you don't seem like a dumbshit, but even smart people can have big areas of blindness.

To unpack this more for people:

1. This 'why don't they tear down the camps' line wasn't invented by NI, it was making the rounds yesterday. It was professionally inserted.
2. It's nonsense. Neither the camps nor anything in Germany glorify Nazis the way US monuments glorify Confederates. Quite the opposite.
3. Using Nazi death camps, of all possible things, in an argument like this, functions as a dog whistle, or a subtle wave of the swastika, to modern fascists.

Viewing NI repetition of the thing here in light of the these three points, gets you the first part of this message.

I'm being as precise as possible. Others wish to broaden the meaning of what I posted. I'm not going there. The post stands and the point I made is valid.

And the point is this: We don't erase memorials of the inhumanity of man against man for a reason. Those that forget history are destined to repeat it.

And the most stark example of that in the modern world is of the Nazi death camps. It is not about "nazi's" specifically, It is just the artifacts of their inhumanity that survive as a reminder. The 20th century monuments to this sort of stuff that existed in the far east (China, Pol Pot, etc.) do not exist to the best of my knowledge, though I must admit ignorance regarding this. They are certainly less infamous, and I suspect it is because they are less accessible or no longer in existence.

But blowing my post off as "mentions Nazis" is ludicrous.

Political Zionists embrace Nazi memorials, because they prompt their cause. That's why they're left untouched.

The Progressive Liberals are going after Confederate memorials, because they're not nearly as smart as the Political Zionists. They don't even recognize their own hatred.

:)

For what it's worth, I do understand the "glorifying' point. But the issue is much more complicated for a simple reason. The south was a lot more than a few slave owners, just as 1930's germany was a lot more than Nazism.

I'm one of those that actually believes that slave ownership was on the way out in the south even if the south had won the war. Their reasons may not have been particularly altruistic (it was becoming simply too expensive compared to the technology being created at the time). But the bottom line is that it is important to understand the mind of those generals and others that ended up with statues erected in their honor, and what they actually stood for, personally and professionally.

We erect statues and turn places into monuments for a reason. Those that forget history are destined to repeat it. I would have a serious problem with a statue of Hitler or Goering, but not o Rommel. There is a reason for that.

And when are they going to randomly tear down statues of men from former generations because none of them measure up to today's standards of what is "right", they probably should be getting rid of that statue of Lennin in Freemont (Seattle).

The whole statue thing, IMO, is a "me thinks they do protest too much" thing and most of them are acting out of ignorance.

Frankly, I'm all for tearing down no small number of those statues for the same reason many here are, but I believe it should not be done by an unruly mob. I also believe it should be a decision made by the people in those particular towns, and not you, me, or anybody else that is not a citizen there.

But that being said, even when they are torn down I think they should be moved to their history musiums just as photos and memorabilia of hitler has been.

And what of all those Greek statues? Were those guys saints (well, some were gods)? Maybe it's time we raze those things as well. ;)

Bottom line is that it may be prudent to remove a lot of statues, but we need to do it as adults and leave the decision to those in the cities and towns where they exist. But it is important to preserve history, even the bad history, for the reasons already stated.

Exactly. Imagine the "Holocaust never happened" crowd living in a world where all trace of the camps had been removed. It would certainly strengthen their cause.

Physical artifacts bolster proof that a thing happened. When you see a statue, you need to ponder the world and culture in which it was erected and why those people did it. That, itself, is a lesson in history and the reality in which previous generations lived.

Robert E. Lee despised human slavery.

Lincoln wanted Lee to be his top general, but Lee believed in 'States Rights' over Federal authority.

That what the Civil War was about. It had very little to do with granting slaves their freedom. The quality of life for the slaves didn't improve much at all when their freedom was granted.

Black folks are still fighting that war. If bringing the statues down is going to help, then it's good thing. Only time will tell.

Oh Hell No ! Did you just say that ? :D

This reminds me of the day Charles Manson died.

Someone on AK said Manson wasn't a musician, and I was like "he was pretty good at the guitar". Shit was on, then.

Manson was obsessed with Rommel. We'll see how this pans out.

Arnold schools Donny and his hateful nazi supporters.

https://youtu.be/q4wgojkSzlU

There is an "alternate history" novel called Guns of the South, written by Harry Turtledove. Great book. It was based on his research regarding the war and the information concerning the beliefs and actions of its major characters.

MASSIVE SPOILER ALERT

In the end, the south wins and Lee becomes president of the south. The guys from the future that helped him win the war attempt to assassinate him when he decides to free the slaves. But he doesn't do it the way the north did in the real world. Only those born after the war are born free, but the rest will be given marginal freedom. The reason was logical. Someone who has been a slave all his life typically has no education and has the personal responsibility level of a child. Sending them out into the world "free" would be like doing the same to a six year old. It would not go well for them (as we learned in the real world). His plan was designed to make sure they could handle the freedom and build solid lives.

But like you said, he was no fan of slavery. I don't think many of his generals were, Forrest being a major exception, obviously. ;)

As with all wars and, frankly, individual human lives in general, things are a bit more complicated than they seem at first glance.

The states rights they fought over was..........the right to own another human. All other rhetoric was window dressing. (IM and most HO)

The reason for the quality of life not changing to the better. Lays squarely at the ruling class. Not the former slaves rather the lack of leadership and will to help them.

R E Lee may of freed his slaves before the war ended. He was still a trader to his oath to the USA. Was responsible for many loyal Americans deaths.

OOPS. :)

Wait. So was Patton. :D

Of course, the question on everybody's mind regarding Manson: Ginger or Maryanne?

So, you've read, "The bell curve"?

Good rebuttal.

The BLM/Progressive demonstrators should stay home, too.

Wrecking the USA at a vulnerable time is not the answer. We'll get a new (and much worse) form of government.

Wrecking the USA? Poppycock. What a ridiculous over-reaction to believe that.

Read the Mona Charon piece I linked to in other thread, and tell me who is actually doing grievous harm to the USA. Hint--he was elected with a minority of the votes.

Hey, still have the link in the buffer, so here you go:

https://thebulwark.com/trump-the-bar...mpression=true

There are no German Nazi memorials or monuments to their lost cause, nor to the architects, generals, statesmen or soldiers that promoted and defended German nazism.
A vast difference to memorials for the victims, for whom the immeasurably costly lessons should not be minimalized or forgotten.
And yet, many folks are determined to ignore them with a return to authoritarian nationalism backed by the plutocracy, the very definition of fascism.

The slave owners were generating a disproportion amount of wealth, and that wealth was equating to political power. The Civil War was fought to curtail that power.

Very few White people wanted the Blacks folks integrated into USA society as equals (or at all). It is evil, not saying this is how it should be, but it's a historical fact.

We shouldn't rewrite history. We can learn from it and move on.

I just read that article for this simple reason: I used to be a big fan of Charon. But that was when I was a Republican. After reading that article, I now see her as just another mouthpiece of the uniparty, AKA, Deep state.

And it hit me with this paragraph:

I'm not even going to argue her points other than to put it this way: Everything she said is true - from an enemies perspective. It would be fun to hear Laura Ingraham or Gutfield attack each point, one by one. I can do it easily but I'm sure they would do a much better job.

But my point is this: As a republican I liked Charon. As a conservative independent, my eyes are opened. She is a member of the Uniparty and Tump is their enemy, even when they may "appear" to be on his side, as Graham has sometimes done. She has been outed by Trump, and that article exposed it to me.

I was referring to the concentration camps.

There's at least two of them that are tourist attractions.

I'm not suggesting the Jewish Holocaust be minimized, or denied.

I'm saying the Confederate history shouldn't be minimized, or denied.

Neither am I, far from it, it shouldn't be denied or minimalized, but neither
should it be celebrated as something somehow noble at any level.
Advocates of this country as a bastion of European heritage white supremacy obviously feel otherwise.

This one is not coming down today...Christopher Columbus

https://www.yahoo.com/news/skirmishe...090000726.html

Step one: Stop the mob.

Constitution be damned, eh? :eek:

Wealth and power.
Both came from slavery. Neither would of happened without.
Wanting to keep wealth and power meant keeping slavery. As you stated the power and wealth was a direct result of slavery.
So it still remains slavery was the root cause.

As to the majority of white folk not wanting the former slaves as equals. It was address by the 14th Amendment, it kinda did this in 1968. Just was never fully implemented.

Going back to the end of the CW Lincoln plan and General Sherman implemented the 40 aches and a mule. To be funded by the property of former slaver owners. Reversed by Johnson within months.

Some wealth and power came from slavery. For millennia.

But not all. Most came from cheap labor or outright theft. :)

But a lot came from good old hard work and inventiveness.

Maybe Gen. Sherman should've been allowed to scourge South Carolina after scourging Georgia. Much like Gen. Patton being held back at the Elbe, we missed an opportunity to pull it up, root and branch. ;)

Nah.

Lee should've flanked the Yankees at Gettysburg, on both ends. Set up shop in DC.

Then given his slaves 40 acres and a mule.

:D