New Orleans Begins Process of "Removing History"

[Neutraligon]

Being memorialized after one's death is not a right. Access to clean food and water is a right. The ability to share one's views without government suppression is a right. The ability to practise the religion of one's choice, or none at all, is a right. Having a statue built to celebrate you is not a right.

So I guess you think that all civil war monuments on both sides should fall?

How do you get that from what was written. No person has the right to have statues put up to them. Should the city/ state/ federal government decide to put up or remove statues is also something they can choose to do. No rights are being violated either way.

[Neutraligon]

The abolition of slavery was not an attack on a geographic region. It was an attack on an evil institution. The fact that it was concentrated geographically is irrelevant.

Evil according to whom? Northern voters? Yes, but I'm sure that a lot of people in the south would disagree quite strongly with you back then.

As well as a lot of other countries given that many other Western nations had abolished slavery already in their own countries and in their colonies. Funny enough had America won the civil war slavery would already have been abolished in the South and would have been done so with less representation then they already had. (Which really was not all that uneven).

[CoraSpia]

So I guess you think that all civil war monuments on both sides should fall?

When the fuck did I say that? You're allowed to do things and have things that aren't basic human rights. You're just also not allowed to complain too much if they're taken away.

Huh? You can't complain too much when things that aren't basic human rights are taken away? So I guess all those people who want to keep city parks rather than have them be built over should just shut the hell up? And I guess that people who don't want to travel 10 miles for a hospital are just whining.

[CoraSpia]

Evil according to whom? Northern voters? Yes, but I'm sure that a lot of people in the south would disagree quite strongly with you back then.

And they would be wrong.

I'm not arguing that slavery is a good thing, I'm arguing that those who fought to defend it deserve to be memorialised as much as unionists do.

[Izandai]

When the fuck did I say that? You're allowed to do things and have things that aren't basic human rights. You're just also not allowed to complain too much if they're taken away.

Huh? You can't complain too much when things that aren't basic human rights are taken away? So I guess all those people who want to keep city parks rather than have them be built over should just shut the hell up? And I guess that people who don't want to travel 10 miles for a hospital are just whining.

I said "too much." Not "at all." And I would say that having to go a long distance to get access to medical treatment might constitute a violation of one's right to healthcare (which I believe is a right, though there are those who would (wrongly) disagree).

[Izandai]

And they would be wrong.

I'm not arguing that slavery is a good thing, I'm arguing that those who fought to defend it deserve to be memorialised as much as unionists do.

And I'm saying they don't, because they were fighting to defend an evil thing.

[CoraSpia]

Huh? You can't complain too much when things that aren't basic human rights are taken away? So I guess all those people who want to keep city parks rather than have them be built over should just shut the hell up? And I guess that people who don't want to travel 10 miles for a hospital are just whining.

I said "too much." Not "at all." And I would say that having to go a long distance to get access to medical treatment might constitute a violation of one's right to healthcare (which I believe is a right, though there are those who would (wrongly) disagree).

actually in the uk, a lot of rural hospitals are being closed so it can be a long drive to a hospital.

[CoraSpia]

I'm not arguing that slavery is a good thing, I'm arguing that those who fought to defend it deserve to be memorialised as much as unionists do.

And I'm saying they don't, because they were fighting to defend an evil thing.

They were fighting to defend the south, which is not in itself evil.

[Neutraligon]

I'm not arguing that slavery is a good thing, I'm arguing that those who fought to defend it deserve to be memorialised as much as unionists do.

And I'm saying they don't, because they were fighting to defend an evil thing.

That and as I said earlier they are memorialized in a way that does not celebrate what they fought for, namely at Arlington cemetery. There is no reason to memorialize traitors to the United States.

[Izandai]

I said "too much." Not "at all." And I would say that having to go a long distance to get access to medical treatment might constitute a violation of one's right to healthcare (which I believe is a right, though there are those who would (wrongly) disagree).

actually in the uk, a lot of rural hospitals are being closed so it can be a long drive to a hospital.

Well that's bad. Admittedly, if someone chooses to live in the middle of bumfuck nowhere the government can hardly be expected to set up a hospital just for them, so there's some grey area there.

[CoraSpia]

actually in the uk, a lot of rural hospitals are being closed so it can be a long drive to a hospital.

Well that's bad. Admittedly, if someone chooses to live in the middle of bumfuck nowhere the government can hardly be expected to set up a hospital just for them, so there's some grey area there.

lol not that rural. Towns of like 20000.

[Izandai]

And I'm saying they don't, because they were fighting to defend an evil thing.

That and as I said earlier they are memorialized in a way that does not celebrate what they fought for, namely at Arlington cemetery. There is no reason to memorialize traitors to the United States.

Eh, as a not-particularly-patriotic person, it's the fact that they were fighting to defend slavery more than the secession from the country that pisses me off.

[CoraSpia]

And I'm saying they don't, because they were fighting to defend an evil thing.

That and as I said earlier they are memorialized in a way that does not celebrate what they fought for, namely at Arlington cemetery. There is no reason to memorialize traitors to the United States.

The cemetery that is built on land stolen from Robert E. Lee? Hardly a fitting tribute.

[USS Monitor]

I'm sure you'd feel the same way if, without a referendum, the government of a northern city was to remove monuments to its union dead? Or is the fact that it's a southern war memorial somehow indicative of its lesser value

If the city wanted them gone then sure. Funny thing except those tourists who are going about taking pictures, no one really pays much attention to those statues except those that are within say museums or in national monuments like the Lincoln Memorial. They are ignored except as a good place to stop or to meet friends at. And once again why is them having fought for ideals that are contrary to the current American ideals not sufficient?

When I find a Union Civil War memorial that I haven't seen before, I usually take a minute or three to admire it, read the inscriptions, and remember how awesome it is that they kicked the Confederacy's ass. I would be disappointed if a good one got taken down, and when I lived in Chelsea, I always thought it was sad that they had one that was falling apart and nobody was taking care of it.

OTOH, if it is honoring an individual who doesn't deserve it or if it's a shitty design with unfortunate racial implications, I don't mind seeing those moved to a more private location. Those problems are more common with Confederate memorials, but there are also a couple of bad Union ones.

[Izandai]

Well that's bad. Admittedly, if someone chooses to live in the middle of bumfuck nowhere the government can hardly be expected to set up a hospital just for them, so there's some grey area there.

lol not that rural. Towns of like 20000.

Yeah, see, they should probably have at least one hospital in their town.

[CoraSpia]

That and as I said earlier they are memorialized in a way that does not celebrate what they fought for, namely at Arlington cemetery. There is no reason to memorialize traitors to the United States.

Eh, as a not-particularly-patriotic person, it's the fact that they were fighting to defend slavery more than the secession from the country that pisses me off.

I'd say that most of them were fighting to defend the south actually. Sure, a few of their leaders like Jeff Davis were fighting to defend slavery, but didn't even Robert E. Lee say that he was only fighting for Virginia?

[Neutraligon]

That and as I said earlier they are memorialized in a way that does not celebrate what they fought for, namely at Arlington cemetery. There is no reason to memorialize traitors to the United States.

The cemetery that is built on land stolen from Robert E. Lee? Hardly a fitting tribute.

Ever been to that cemetery? Before you say one thing about it, make sure you know what it is like first.

[Izandai]

And I'm saying they don't, because they were fighting to defend an evil thing.

They were fighting to defend the south, which is not in itself evil.

They were fighting to defend the South's ability to own slaves, which is in itself evil. And as the South was largely defined in that time by its ownership of slaves, one could reasonably argue that it was, in fact, evil.

[CoraSpia]

If the city wanted them gone then sure. Funny thing except those tourists who are going about taking pictures, no one really pays much attention to those statues except those that are within say museums or in national monuments like the Lincoln Memorial. They are ignored except as a good place to stop or to meet friends at. And once again why is them having fought for ideals that are contrary to the current American ideals not sufficient?

When I find a Union Civil War memorial that I haven't seen before, I usually take a minute or three to admire it, read the inscriptions, and remember how awesome it is that they kicked the Confederacy's ass. I would be disappointed if a good one got taken down, and when I lived in Chelsea, I always thought it was sad that they had one that was falling apart and nobody was taking care of it.

OTOH, if it is honoring an individual who doesn't deserve it or if it's a shitty design with unfortunate racial implications, I don't mind seeing those moved to a more private location. Those problems are more common with Confederate memorials, but there are also a couple of bad Union ones.

I think, however, Robert E. Lee does deserve a memorial. As for Boregard, it was his home state and he wasn't the worst general in the world.

[Neutraligon]

They were fighting to defend the south, which is not in itself evil.

They were fighting to defend the South's ability to own slaves, which is in itself evil. And as the South was largely defined in that time by its ownership of slaves, one could reasonably argue that it was, in fact, evil.

Also, given that they made the first move by firing on land they did not own, I could hardly say they where defending their state.

[Izandai]

Eh, as a not-particularly-patriotic person, it's the fact that they were fighting to defend slavery more than the secession from the country that pisses me off.

I'd say that most of them were fighting to defend the south actually. Sure, a few of their leaders like Jeff Davis were fighting to defend slavery, but didn't even Robert E. Lee say that he was only fighting for Virginia?

Whatever their personal reasons for joining the fight were, the fact remains that by fighting they were defending slavery.

[CoraSpia]

The cemetery that is built on land stolen from Robert E. Lee? Hardly a fitting tribute.

Ever been to that cemetery? Before you say one thing about it, make sure you know what it is like first.

Yes, it's an extremely solemn, rather awe-enspiring place to visit, which makes you think of the sort of sacrifice people made for their country. It's a war cemetery, in other words.
However, the fact that it was built to piss off southerners is still as true as ever.

[CoraSpia]

I'd say that most of them were fighting to defend the south actually. Sure, a few of their leaders like Jeff Davis were fighting to defend slavery, but didn't even Robert E. Lee say that he was only fighting for Virginia?

Whatever their personal reasons for joining the fight were, the fact remains that by fighting they were defending slavery.

It's not how the majority of them would have seen it. After all, in an age of poor education when you're being told by the priest and the newspaper that it's your patriotic duty to fight for your state (and their's a draft from the mid-point of the war), what are you going to do?

[Izandai]

They were fighting to defend the South's ability to own slaves, which is in itself evil. And as the South was largely defined in that time by its ownership of slaves, one could reasonably argue that it was, in fact, evil.

Also, given that they made the first move by firing on land they did not own, I could hardly say they where defending their state.

Oh yeah, that's right. The first military action of the Civil War was the Confederacy attacking a fort that Lincoln specifically told them was not being resupplied with ammunition because he didn't want a fight. I forgot that. Good point.

[CoraSpia]

Also, given that they made the first move by firing on land they did not own, I could hardly say they where defending their state.

Oh yeah, that's right. The first military action of the Civil War was the Confederacy attacking a fort that Lincoln specifically told them was not being resupplied with ammunition because he didn't want a fight. I forgot that. Good point.

maybe if he'd just evacuated it...