New Orleans Begins Process of "Removing History"

[Alvecia]

Well....yes actually. Not much maintenance you can do on a statue that loses a body part every week.
I mean, I'm sure you can keep the plinth nice and shiny.

Vandalism is still illegal. There won't be much body part loss with anyone actually watching the thing.

Oh, believe me, there will be.

[Kekistonia]

Vandalism is still illegal. There won't be much body part loss with anyone actually watching the thing.

Oh, believe me, there will be.

Oh, the looks on their faces when they're arrested for comminting a crime. "But officer, I dindu anything wrong! it was a freakin' a white male, that makes crime OK!"

[Soldati Senza Confini]

History isn't being erased.

Pretty easy to tell that historical revision is the intent.

Obviously you don't understand what "historical revisionism" is.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Pretty easy to tell that historical revision is the intent.

Removing fucking monuments to white supremacy from public display =/= Rewriting history books.

I mean, they're not even removing them permanently. They'll be relocated or put in a museum, so it's not like they're being permanently put away in some private storage facility.

[Alvecia]

Oh, believe me, there will be.

Oh, the looks on their faces when they're arrested for comminting a crime. "But officer, I dindu anything wrong! it was a freakin' a white male, that makes crime OK!"

24/7 police presence around all confederate statutes. Oh, that'll get approved, I'm sure.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Oh, believe me, there will be.

Oh, the looks on their faces when they're arrested for comminting a crime. "But officer, I dindu anything wrong! it was a freakin' a white male, that makes crime OK!"

It's not like they're pulverizing the statues, ffs.

The plan is to relocate the statues to another location or into a museum.

[Alvecia]

Oh, the looks on their faces when they're arrested for comminting a crime. "But officer, I dindu anything wrong! it was a freakin' a white male, that makes crime OK!"

It's not like they're pulverizing the statues, ffs.

The plan is to relocate the statues to another location or into a museum.

We're working under the assumption that were they not moved they would just not be maintained by the city, and instead will have a 24/7 guard/cleaning crew of white southern blokes.
For some reason....

[Kekistonia]

Oh, the looks on their faces when they're arrested for comminting a crime. "But officer, I dindu anything wrong! it was a freakin' a white male, that makes crime OK!"

24/7 police presence around all confederate statutes. Oh, that'll get approved, I'm sure.

A lefty takes it to the extreme, example #1374

[Kekistonia]

It's not like they're pulverizing the statues, ffs.

The plan is to relocate the statues to another location or into a museum.

We're working under the assumption that were they not moved they would just not be maintained by the city, and instead will have a 24/7 guard/cleaning crew of white southern blokes.
For some reason....

A lefty takes it to the extreme, example #1375. The lefty lunacy counter will now be my sig.

[Alvecia]

24/7 police presence around all confederate statutes. Oh, that'll get approved, I'm sure.

A lefty lunatic takes it to the extreme, example #1374

FYI, that kind of thing will get you smacked.

Not literally, ofc.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

We're working under the assumption that were they not moved they would just not be maintained by the city, and instead will have a 24/7 guard/cleaning crew of white southern blokes.
For some reason....

A lefty lunatic takes it to the extreme, example #1375

Do you have anything else to contribute?

[Kekistonia]

A lefty lunatic takes it to the extreme, example #1375

Do you have anything else to contribute?

Considering these people actually support a rather serious crime against things they don't like, I'd say that says more than I ever could. So no.

[Nulla Bellum]

Why are these automatically declared "monuments to white supremacy?" Do they actually have signage explicitly declaring that?

Or is that just so much caustic language for "argument supremacy?"

I look at a statue of a guy on a horse and don't see advocacy of anything.

[Calladan]

You can read people's minds now? Cause that is a really cool skill!! Can you tell me what I'm thinking?

You can think?

Was that strictly necessary? I was just asking how you can tell the intent of something just based on the action.

Max Barry, founder and creator of this site, banned swastikas. Does that mean he is trying to pretend World War Two, The Third Reich and The Holocaust never happened? No. That would be an insane, crazy troll logic interpretation of his ban. And the reason I know this is because there have been plenty of discussions about World War Two, about The Third Reich and about The Holocaust.

So to unilaterally claim that you can divine intent from action must mean either a) you are projecting your own bias on to it or b) you can read minds. And since I didn't want to accuse of you of bias, I thought I would suggest you could read minds instead.

Why are these automatically declared "monuments to white supremacy?" Do they actually have signage explicitly declaring that?

Or is that just so much caustic language for "argument supremacy?"

I look at a statue of a guy on a horse and don't see advocacy of anything.

I am guessing you probably don't find the statues offensive? So try taking a moment to look at them from the point of view of someone who might. Who might have a reason to think statues that bear a plaque that has the words "the national election of November 1876 recognized white supremacy in the South and gave us our state" just might possibly be honouring white supremacy. (Here's a hint - IT SAYS SO ON THE FUCKING PLAQUE).

If - after taking a moment to do that - you still think they aren't honouring white supremacy, I will accept your point.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Why are these automatically declared "monuments to white supremacy?" Do they actually have signage explicitly declaring that?

Or is that just so much caustic language for "argument supremacy?"

I look at a statue of a guy on a horse and don't see advocacy of anything.

I mean, there's the motive of the statues: why they were put where they were put (namely, why not the North but yes the South), and why were they built.

In a way, it was to memorialize and heroisize the civil war in the South, because these are Confederate monuments.

The Confederacy was, for right or wrong, fighting for the right of state self-determination given to them by the tenth amendment of the constitution and preserve their way of life, which meant keeping the institution of slavery. Which, for today's standards, is the same as "white supremacy" considering the amount of skinheads and KKK advocates who want to see a return to Jim Crow, plus the fact that back then there was also no qualms about being racist and think this way either.

Nowadays, people see that as something they shouldn't celebrate or memorialize in such a manner, this is why they are being relocated out of public view.

[Conserative Morality]

Why are these automatically declared "monuments to white supremacy?" Do they actually have signage explicitly declaring that?

Or is that just so much caustic language for "argument supremacy?"

I look at a statue of a guy on a horse and don't see advocacy of anything.

The following inscription was added in 1932:

"[Democrats] McEnery and Penn[11] having been elected governor and lieutenant-governor by the white people, were duly installed by this overthrow of carpetbag government, ousting the usurpers, Governor Kellogg (white) and Lieutenant-Governor Antoine (colored).
United States troops took over the state government and reinstated the usurpers but the national election of November 1876 recognized white supremacy in the South and gave us our state."

[Ifreann]

Do you have anything else to contribute?

Considering these people actually support a rather serious crime against things they don't like, I'd say that says more than I ever could. So no.

I don't think anyone seriously supports vandalising Confederate monuments, we just enjoy the schadenfreude of the idea of "proud southerners" weeping gentlemanly tears when they see that Robert E. Lee's eyes have dildos glued to them again.

---

Why are these automatically declared "monuments to white supremacy?" Do they actually have signage explicitly declaring that?

Yes.

The following inscription was added in 1932:

"[Democrats] McEnery and Penn[11] having been elected governor and lieutenant-governor by the white people, were duly installed by this overthrow of carpetbag government, ousting the usurpers, Governor Kellogg (white) and Lieutenant-Governor Antoine (colored).

United States troops took over the state government and reinstated the usurpers but the national election of November 1876 recognized white supremacy in the South and gave us our state."

In 1974, the city government added an adjacent marker, which stated:

"Although the "battle of Liberty Place" and this monument are important parts of the New Orleans history, the sentiments in favor of white supremacy expressed thereon are contrary to the philosophy and beliefs of present-day New Orleans."

When the monument was moved in 1993, some of the original inscriptions were removed, and replaced with new inscriptions that state in part:

"In honor of those Americans on both sides who died in the Battle of Liberty Place ... A conflict of the past that should teach us lessons for the future."[12][13]

[Cannot think of a name]

Oh, believe me, there will be.

Oh, the looks on their faces when they're arrested for comminting a crime. "But officer, I dindu anything wrong! it was a freakin' a white male, that makes crime OK!"

Oh, I get your schtick now. Don't bother taking off your coat...

[Infected Mushroom]

In my view attacking Fort Sumter is not an act of war (since its on Southern soil). However, the North was the first to cross the line and actually invade. So I would say they started the war.

The South fucking seceded and started seizing Federal installations! What the fuck?!

were those Federal installations not located in the South? It wouldn't be a successful secession if those forts remained in Northern hands now would it?

See what I mean?

[Infected Mushroom]

In my view attacking Fort Sumter is not an act of war (since its on Southern soil). However, the North was the first to cross the line and actually invade. So I would say they started the war.

The act of firing upon Fort Sumter, which was federal property, started the war and it was the duty of the United States (the North) to put down the treasonous rebellion.

well if it was located in the North and it was fired upon, I would agree that the South started the war. But I don't see this here.

Who moves armies over the line first?

The North marched armies into the South, not the other way around.

[Datlofff]

Oh, bullshit. Lee was not against slavery in any meaningful way. He said it was necessary for the negroes "instruction as a race" and he was fine with it lasting another thousand years. He kept the slaves he inherited for as long as he was allowed to keep them under the terms of the will. He wasn't a hero and he doesn't deserve any monuments.

Sherman was a nobody when the war started, and unless the Confederate Army was staffed with time-travelers you can't use Sherman's campaigns from 1864 and 1865 as a justification why people enlisted in the Confederate Army in 1861. Sherman also was much less brutal than the way Southerners like to imagine him in their BDSM Civil War fantasies. He went out of his way to scare people, even when he wasn't actually killing very many, and his scare tactics left a lasting impression.

As for the draft, it's hard to get drafted by the CSA if you've already enlisted in the Union Army -- which several Southern guys did.

It wasn't that Sherman's "bummers" massacred civilians en masse, it's that they stole irreplaceable supplies that many families needed to survive the winter, dooming them by default.

They didn't just take the preexisting food - like hams curing in the smokehouse - they also stole the chickens, cows, horses and other livestock so the family had a much more difficult time replacing the food that was taken and replenishing their winter hoard.

Many foragers also stole valuables from the homeowners they plundered, like gold and jewelry.

Think about it. If the season isn't right for growing enough new crops, you have no animals to produce milk, eggs, and meat, at least two thirds of your preexisting food supply including what was saved up for the winter months is gone, you have no horse to travel to look for food, and you have no valuables to trade for food, you are in trouble.

The American side of my family was living in the South during the civil war, ironically having just moved down from Pennsylvania and later Indiana. It was a big mistake. They bought a farm and invested their lives into it. There was only one man of fighting age in the family between 1860 and 1865, and he was not fit for military service because he was deaf and dumb.

Of course, despite not owning slaves or participating in the rebellion they were not spared Sherman's March. They lost their food supply and narrowly staved off starvation by picking pokeweed, which is no better than eating grass. Needless to say there was insufficient food for the winter.

I don't entertain BDSM fantasies about Sherman. Nobody in my family thinks about him today, but until my great-grandmother's generation they were still extremely bitter about him as an individual because of what his army did. I'm sure Sherman's troops needed that food themselves, but to my ancestors it looked like a calculated act of treachery, condemning them to near starvation, taking what little valuables they possessed, and ruining their livelihood (through the theft of the livestock).

It's easy to imagine that all the individuals who suffered as a result of Sherman's army were traitors and slave owning scumbags who got a well-deserved comeuppance when he showed up and kicked their asses. But nothing in history is ever absolute. My ancestors weren't traitors. They didn't fight for either side. They were just people who invested everything into a farm they weren't willing to give up when the war started after having just moved there less than a decade earlier. They didn't deserve to get reduced to abject poverty and malnourishment.

And in this case it wasn't as simple as sending their sons away to join the federal army, either.

Like I said I don't hate Sherman, but I can understand where that sentiment comes from. For the same reason I don't particularly like him either.

As the man said, it was war, and war is cruelty.

My point exactly, also, what about the people of the deep south in mississippi, florida, texas, how do they enlist in the union army if they have to cross the entire state and the battle lines to do so?

[Kekistonia]

Oh, the looks on their faces when they're arrested for comminting a crime. "But officer, I dindu anything wrong! it was a freakin' a white male, that makes crime OK!"

Oh, I get your schtick now. Don't bother taking off your coat...

What are you talking about? I referenced 2 well-known memes to make fun of radicals.

[Neutraligon]

The South fucking seceded and started seizing Federal installations! What the fuck?!

were those Federal installations not located in the South? It wouldn't be a successful secession if those forts remained in Northern hands now would it?

See what I mean?

They may be in the south but they were on federally owned land. With federally owned ammunition and guns and all that other stuff. The southerners who attacked the fort trespassed against on other people's lands in an attempt to steal other people's stuff.

[Infected Mushroom]

were those Federal installations not located in the South? It wouldn't be a successful secession if those forts remained in Northern hands now would it?

See what I mean?

They may be in the south but they were on federally owned land. With federally owned ammunition and guns and all that other stuff. The southerners who attacked the fort trespassed against on other people's lands in an attempt to steal other people's stuff.

Well the USA claims to own all of the land in the South.

So when the South declared independence, it claimed all of that land. Now its just a matter of which army crosses the north-south line first. That was decidedly the North. Fort Sumter is just a prelude.

[Neutraligon]

They may be in the south but they were on federally owned land. With federally owned ammunition and guns and all that other stuff. The southerners who attacked the fort trespassed against on other people's lands in an attempt to steal other people's stuff.

Well the USA claims to own all of the land in the South.

No the USA claims that all the land in the south falls under US rule. The federal government does not own all that land. The fort was actually federally owned land.

So when the South declared independence, it claimed all of that land. Now its just a matter of which army crosses the north-south line first. That was decidedly the North. Fort Sumter is just a prelude.

So you have no problem if I walk onto your property and declare it as mine, because that is what you are saying is allowed. The south attempted to steal the property of the federal government, including the guns, ammunition, land etc.