Baltimore to remove Confederate Monuments

[Ifreann]

I agree completely, we should bomb the Mesoamerican pyramids next, they were used for human sacrifice after all.

I disagree. We should preserve every monument erected by 21st neonazi assholes to glorify the suffering of the lesser races by putting them in the middle of our towns and cities on government property.

For history.

After all, if we destroyed or moved a statue, WHAT KIND OF MONSTERS WOULD THAT MAKE US????

Remember those statues of naked Trump someone erected around New York? It pains me every day to know that they aren't there any more. What kind of terrible person could destroy history like that?

[Platypus Reborn]

I am extremely opposed to this idea. All historical artefacts need to be preserved and kept so that future generations can learn from them. Even if the artifices were the most morally reprehensible things in the world there is still something future people could learn them. In fact, this is escpecially important with artifacts celebrating evil because they remind us not to repeat the same mistakes again.

This right here. There are certainly some sculptures and statues that should be torn down, but not all of them.

[Seangoli]

I agree completely, we should bomb the Mesoamerican pyramids next, they were used for human sacrifice after all.

Unless you plan on making a religion out of slavery I wouldn't compare propaganda to religious temples.

Or actual History to Not History, for that matter. The Mesoamerican pyramids were actual monuments built and used by a group of people in their religious lives.

The Statues are modernist creations built by wistful nostalgia-laden racists that are not an actual part of history, and instead represent said history.

There is a difference.

[Seangoli]

If anything then it was for the states' rights to own slaves, which is basically over slavery then. The confederate flag is now a go-to symbol for any right wing radical, so I understand why it's banned, although I am against it personally. Even if you manage to ban it completely they'll just rally around some other symbol.

No, it was just over state's rights to govern themselves and to set up their own laws. Slavery just happened to be a part of it. In fact, the only reason slavery was such a big deal for the South is because plantations were the main source of economy for them, whereas factories and other industrial jobs was the source of economy for the North. It's like saying that the Women's Rights protests in the 1920's was about women getting the right to vote, when in fact, it's ultimate goal was to make women equal members of society, and voting just happened to be a part of it.

The Confederacy made no illusions about Slavery being the central driving character of their creation. It didn't 'just happen' to be the fucking case. I don't see why historic apologists and revisionists are so dumb-founded by this, given that the Confederacy very clearly laid out their reasons for secession, and the major reason was fucking Slavery. As for State's Rights, the South was the one encroaching on the rights of the northern States, lest we forgive the utter bullshit that was the Fugitive Slave Laws, or the god-damn Dred Scott decision which removed all agency of the North States to regulate the institution of Slavery in their own damn states. This concept that the South had their 'state's right" encroached is fucking rich, particularly given that they were more than willing to shit all over the North. It also is disingenuous bullshit, given that the "state right" the South was fighting for was undeniable the right to own fucking slaves.

And comparing the Confederacy to Suffrage is fucking disgusting. One was about political enfranchisement of an unrepresented class. The other was created for the sole purpose to subjugate a group of people for the color of their skin, and maintain the institution of slavery in perpetuity.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

Well, won't be the first or the last time that some authority embarks on a witch-hunt against historical monuments for the sake of ideological orthodoxy.

[USS Monitor]

I'll honestly never know why Baltimore had those statues to begin with

Because it was full of secesh.

Western Maryland wanted nothing to do with the Confederacy and their representatives in the state legislature were the ones pushing to stay in the Union. Baltimore and the Eastern Shore were full of Confederate sympathizers.

[The first Galactic Republic]

A lot of people consider these statues to be historical artifacts that shouldn't be removed because it's an affront to history.

Honestly though, do you all feel this way about all statues? Were the Iraqis who toppled Saddam Hussein's statues ruining history?

As an archaeologist, this notion that statue are historical artifacts of the Civil War is completely idiotic. They are not "history", they are portrayals of historic events. They can be artifacts, however they are of an entirely different context than what people are claiming.

Removing Statues isn't removing the history, because the Statues are not the damn historical event, historical person, historical place, or event.

As we all know, semantic dodges are the best way out resolve heated discussions. I'm sure we'll all find that this thread and all related conversations will now come to a definite end because of this helpful contribution.

[USS Monitor]

No they should not be destroyed. How far do you want to take that? Should confederate cemeteries be destroyed? Should the home of Jefferson Davis be demolished?

Should counties named for the confederate leaders be changed?

If that's what it takes to end the Lost Cause nonsense, than so be it. No glory for tyrants.

Don't demolish house-museums just because the historical figure who lived there was an ass.

[Vivida Vis Animi]

If anything then it was for the states' rights to own slaves, which is basically over slavery then. The confederate flag is now a go-to symbol for any right wing radical, so I understand why it's banned, although I am against it personally. Even if you manage to ban it completely they'll just rally around some other symbol.

No, it was just over state's rights to govern themselves and to set up their own laws. Slavery just happened to be a part of it.

What a gross understatement of what happened. The entire argument stemmed from slavery ever since the debate began on which new western states should and shouldn't allow slavery. It's hard to argue that it's over "states' rights" when the only real right they were fighting for was slavery, a fact that they were not sheepish about as they explicitly state that several times in various articles dealing with each state's separation.

In fact, the only reason slavery was such a big deal for the South is because plantations were the main source of economy for them, whereas factories and other industrial jobs was the source of economy for the North.

Obviously. While everyone who supported slavery was a white supremacist, they didn't do it solely because "blacks were predetermined to serve white men," although that train of thought isn't exactly an outlier amongst the rich whites at this time. Not to mention that as more states began to enter the union it became less so about the pure economics and also about politics by keeping the slave v. free states equal. While it's doubtful any western states would've had as many slaves as the south, all that matters is the balance in the Senate.

It's like saying that the Women's Rights protests in the 1920's was about women getting the right to vote, when in fact, it's ultimate goal was to make women equal members of society, and voting just happened to be a part of it.

So you're saying slavery was completely necessary in order to promote the idea of states rights? What utter bollocks.

[USS Monitor]

No, it was just over state's rights to govern themselves and to set up their own laws. Slavery just happened to be a part of it. In fact, the only reason slavery was such a big deal for the South is because plantations were the main source of economy for them, whereas factories and other industrial jobs was the source of economy for the North. It's like saying that the Women's Rights protests in the 1920's was about women getting the right to vote, when in fact, it's ultimate goal was to make women equal members of society, and voting just happened to be a part of it.

The Confederacy made no illusions about Slavery being the central driving character of their creation. It didn't 'just happen' to be the fucking case. I don't see why historic apologists and revisionists are so dumb-founded by this, given that the Confederacy very clearly laid out their reasons for secession, and the major reason was fucking Slavery. As for State's Rights, the South was the one encroaching on the rights of the northern States, lest we forgive the utter bullshit that was the Fugitive Slave Laws, or the god-damn Dred Scott decision which removed all agency of the North States to regulate the institution of Slavery in their own damn states. This concept that the South had their 'state's right" encroached is fucking rich, particularly given that they were more than willing to shit all over the North. It also is disingenuous bullshit, given that the "state right" the South was fighting for was undeniable the right to own fucking slaves.

And comparing the Confederacy to Suffrage is fucking disgusting. One was about political enfranchisement of an unrepresented class. The other was created for the sole purpose to subjugate a group of people for the color of their skin, and maintain the institution of slavery in perpetuity.

^This.

The North was more patient with the South than we should have been, but we really don't like to fight.

[Nexus of All Realities]

The Confederacy made no illusions about Slavery being the central driving character of their creation. It didn't 'just happen' to be the fucking case. I don't see why historic apologists and revisionists are so dumb-founded by this, given that the Confederacy very clearly laid out their reasons for secession, and the major reason was fucking Slavery. As for State's Rights, the South was the one encroaching on the rights of the northern States, lest we forgive the utter bullshit that was the Fugitive Slave Laws, or the god-damn Dred Scott decision which removed all agency of the North States to regulate the institution of Slavery in their own damn states. This concept that the South had their 'state's right" encroached is fucking rich, particularly given that they were more than willing to shit all over the North. It also is disingenuous bullshit, given that the "state right" the South was fighting for was undeniable the right to own fucking slaves.

And comparing the Confederacy to Suffrage is fucking disgusting. One was about political enfranchisement of an unrepresented class. The other was created for the sole purpose to subjugate a group of people for the color of their skin, and maintain the institution of slavery in perpetuity.

The North was more patient with the South than we should have been,.................... but we really don't like to fight.

Yankee imperialism has been the cause of every war the U.S. has fought in with the exception of the Rev. War. and maybe WW2.

[Dylar]

No, it was just over state's rights to govern themselves and to set up their own laws. Slavery just happened to be a part of it. In fact, the only reason slavery was such a big deal for the South is because plantations were the main source of economy for them, whereas factories and other industrial jobs was the source of economy for the North. It's like saying that the Women's Rights protests in the 1920's was about women getting the right to vote, when in fact, it's ultimate goal was to make women equal members of society, and voting just happened to be a part of it.

The Confederacy made no illusions about Slavery being the central driving character of their creation. It didn't 'just happen' to be the fucking case. I don't see why historic apologists and revisionists are so dumb-founded by this, given that the Confederacy very clearly laid out their reasons for secession, and the major reason was fucking Slavery. As for State's Rights, the South was the one encroaching on the rights of the northern States, lest we forgive the utter bullshit that was the Fugitive Slave Laws, or the god-damn Dred Scott decision which removed all agency of the North States to regulate the institution of Slavery in their own damn states. This concept that the South had their 'state's right" encroached is fucking rich, particularly given that they were more than willing to shit all over the North. It also is disingenuous bullshit, given that the "state right" the South was fighting for was undeniable the right to own fucking slaves.

And comparing the Confederacy to Suffrage is fucking disgusting. One was about political enfranchisement of an unrepresented class. The other was created for the sole purpose to subjugate a group of people for the color of their skin, and maintain the institution of slavery in perpetuity.

I didn't say that their states rights were being infringed upon, so don't try and put words in my mouth. One of the Confederacy's reasons for secession were to keep slavery, that is true, but it was mainly because the slaves were their main source of economy in the South, and it was an integral part of Southern society at the time. The North didn't fight the South because they thought slavery was wrong, they fought the South because they were a bunch of traitors threatening the peace and stability of the Union. To think that the North fought out of the goodness of their hearts to end slavery is pretty naive. Also, what would you want me to compare the Confederacy to? The Suffrage was the first thing that came to mind, would you rather have me type about the Crusades, cause I can do that too...P.S. I am not condoning slavery, nor am I trying to justify the CSA's actions. Apologies if it seems that way to anyone reading this post.

[Crockerland]

I agree completely, we should bomb the Mesoamerican pyramids next, they were used for human sacrifice after all.

What is it with people trying to defend Confederate monuments by demanding that relics outside of the United States also be destroyed? Can't you defend Confederate monuments in their own right?

The point is that neither slavery nor human sacrifice or acceptable, and tearing down monuments is not a good response to historical instances of either.

What is it with people trying to defend Confederate monuments by demanding that relics outside of the United States also be destroyed? Can't you defend Confederate monuments in their own right?

Not without admitting to some socially unacceptable opinions.

If you're going to make a slimy, weaselly, limp-dicked accusation of racism or whatever other "socially unacceptable opinion" you had in mind, you should just do so rather than hiding behind vagueness and intimations.

I agree completely, we should bomb the Mesoamerican pyramids next, they were used for human sacrifice after all.

One is actual history where people lived and acted.

The other is a modern-day creation commemorating inhumane racist shits.

Statues are not actually history by virtue of them portraying historic events, or commemorating them. Your comparison would be more apt if we were talking about destroying the Bull Run battlefield, or the Evergreen Plantation in New Orleans.

The Lee-Jackson monument is the only post-WWI statue being targeted, and it's construction began in the 1930s, predating the first transistors and atom bombs, so I don't see how the statues are "modern-day creation[s]".

[Seangoli]

The North was more patient with the South than we should have been,.................... but we really don't like to fight.

Yankee imperialism has been the cause of every war the U.S. has fought in with the exception of the Rev. War. and maybe WW2.

Fugitive Slave Laws, Dredd Scott, and lest we forget the Civil War actually starting because the Confederates attacked a Union Fort.

So yeah, "Yankee Imperialism" is bullshit. The South started the damn war, the south tried to put the political heel to the North, and the South fucking lost. I have never seen a group more apologistic and revionistic as pro-Confederate southerners, to an insane degree that defies all logic.

[Vulgar Bulgar]

What will this achieve other then alienating descendants of CSA combatants.

[Sovaal]

The North was more patient with the South than we should have been,.................... but we really don't like to fight.

Yankee imperialism has been the cause of every war the U.S. has fought in with the exception of the Rev. War. and maybe WW2.

Yep, Yankee imperialism started the Civil War.
And WW1
And the Barbary wars.
And the Korean war.
Here's the /s.

[Sovaal]

Yankee imperialism has been the cause of every war the U.S. has fought in with the exception of the Rev. War. and maybe WW2.

Fugitive Slave Laws, Dredd Scott, and lest we forget the Civil War actually starting because the Confederates attacked a Union Fort.

So yeah, "Yankee Imperialism" is bullshit. The South started the damn war, the south tried to put the political heel to the North, and the South fucking lost. I have never seen a group more apologistic and revionistic as pro-Confederate southerners, to an insane degree that defies all logic.

But it's always the War of Northern aggression down here.

[USS Monitor]

The North was more patient with the South than we should have been,.................... but we really don't like to fight.

Yankee imperialism has been the cause of every war the U.S. has fought in with the exception of the Rev. War. and maybe WW2.

No. The South is much more militaristic than the North and supports more interventionist foreign policies.

[Arkinesia]

Yankee imperialism has been the cause of every war the U.S. has fought in with the exception of the Rev. War. and maybe WW2.

No. The South is much more militaristic than the North and supports more interventionist foreign policies.

As an actual Southerner (which I'm starting to think Nexus isn't), this.

[Conserative Morality]

If you're going to make a slimy, weaselly, limp-dicked accusation of racism or whatever other "socially unacceptable opinion" you had in mind, you should just do so rather than hiding behind vagueness and intimations.

Okay. My accusation is that defenses of the Confederacy are only done by slimy, weaselly, limp-dicked racists who are too afraid of big bad liberals to admit to having a socially unacceptable opinion.

Is that clear enough for you? i thought it was clear before, but I guess not everyone can read on a high school level.

[Nexus of All Realities]

Yankee imperialism has been the cause of every war the U.S. has fought in with the exception of the Rev. War. and maybe WW2.

No. The South is much more militaristic than the North and supports more interventionist foreign policies.

The power still resides largely in the northeastern corridor. The South, which doesn't exactly exist anymore, not enough to capitalize, is full of people who make up the majority that fight this nations wars. That's because they have fewer economic opportunities than the rest of the country. They are "militaristic" because they support their sons and daughters. If you consider D.C. to be southern........ok.

[Major-Tom]

Put 'em in a warehouse somewhere, or maybe a museum.

[Nexus of All Realities]

No. The South is much more militaristic than the North and supports more interventionist foreign policies.

As an actual Southerner (which I'm starting to think Nexus isn't), this.

No, um, whatever you are you live in your own bubble.

[Sovaal]

I disagree. We should preserve every monument erected by 21st neonazi assholes to glorify the suffering of the lesser races by putting them in the middle of our towns and cities on government property.

For history.

After all, if we destroyed or moved a statue, WHAT KIND OF MONSTERS WOULD THAT MAKE US????

Remember those statues of naked Trump someone erected around New York? It pains me every day to know that they aren't there any more. What kind of terrible person could destroy history like that?

Why, do you like scaring people like that?!?!

[San Lumen]

Put 'em in a warehouse somewhere, or maybe a museum. Destroying some of 'em, well, I guess that's fine.

Why should some be destroyed and not others?