NationStates

New Decandsor wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Baltimore has now become the next municipality to announce they are going to remove confederate monuments

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/in ... a14d4e2627

Some on the city council have called for the monuments to not only be removed but be destroyed.

Im very conflicted about this. On the one hand these were people who fought against the country and fought a rebellion but it is a part of history and history should never be forgotten.
But on the other they are memorializing people who fought against what the country stands for. People like Justice Roger Taney whom one of the monuments in Baltimore is of authored the infamous Dred Scott decision. A bust or statue of him should not be destroyed as it was the Dred Scott decision that helped lead to the civil war.

If places want to remove them they should be put in museums but certainly not destroyed.

What's your thoughts NSG on this contentious issue?

Jesus Christ. It's been a hundred and fifty years and people still can't get over this? They definitely shouldn't be destroyed, if they wish to take them down, they should be placed in a museum. Continuously seeing people wanting to take down these monuments all the time just tells me that people can't get over it and move forward.

Jim Crow laws were still in place in these states until 40 years ago. Many of these states see deep-seeded institutional racism in them. These Confederate Monument empower and embolden racist Confederate apologist nostalgia, and legitimizes them politically.

You saying it's over means you do not fucking get it. It's not over. There are people who are still wistful about the Confederacy, and are apologists about the purpose of it. Hell, there are many in the South who actually believe the racist shit that the Confederacy was founded on. And these monuments legitimize those people in the public and political world.

Imagery and messages fucking matter, and these cities are laudable for sending the clearest message they can that this bullshit is unacceptable, that the Confederacy is not some wistful thing to look back at with nostalgia, and there is no room for racist apologists in the Modern day.

It's unfortunate that it took an innocent woman dying in a Nazi terrorist attack for local governments to come out against monuments to the Confederacy, but other than that, this is a good thing.

The Widening Gyre wrote:As I said in the other umpteen iterations of this thread, they're cheap Jim Crow era propaganda pieces that should have been destroyed years ago. Good riddance.

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

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?

USS Monitor wrote:I guess they woke up and noticed they're in a Union state.

Thank you, wise Union ironclad.

Crockerland wrote:

The Widening Gyre wrote:As I said in the other umpteen iterations of this thread, they're cheap Jim Crow era propaganda pieces that should have been destroyed years ago. Good riddance.

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?

Crockerland wrote:

The Widening Gyre wrote:As I said in the other umpteen iterations of this thread, they're cheap Jim Crow era propaganda pieces that should have been destroyed years ago. Good riddance.

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

most of them were destroyed anyway by imperialist spaniards

Crockerland wrote: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????

Valyrian Freeholds wrote:

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

most of them were destroyed anyway by imperialist spaniards

And replaced with Catholic churches and monasteries which may or may not have been involved in behavior that was almost as bad. So...

Liriena wrote: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.

Crockerland wrote:

The Widening Gyre wrote:As I said in the other umpteen iterations of this thread, they're cheap Jim Crow era propaganda pieces that should have been destroyed years ago. Good riddance.

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.

Nuevo Libera wrote:

USS Monitor wrote:I guess they woke up and noticed they're in a Union state.

Thank you, wise Union ironclad.

That ship knows what's up.

Maryland didn't secede, there's no reason to have monuments to a country that was never even in Maryland. They belong on the national battlefields.

The first Galactic Republic wrote: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.

Alvecia wrote:If they're going to, stick em in a museum somewhere.

Exactly this, or storage. I believe that it is appropriate to remove Confederate Monuments from public view due to the context, but destruction seems to be a grey area as it may be needed for explaining how the US used to remember the Civil War.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Maryland didn't secede, there's no reason to have monuments to a country that was never even in Maryland. They belong on the national battlefields.

Maryland's history in that regard is rather complicated. Its not cut and dry as one might think. There was a lot of confederate sympathy in Maryland. It was a slave state after all. Roger Taney the author of the Dred Scott decision was from Maryland.

These monuments should not destroyed but Im also conflicted as to weather they should be taken down.

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

Internationalist Bastard wrote:I'll honestly never know why Baltimore had those statues to begin with

Maryland has a very complicated history. It was a slave state that didn't succeed from the union however why they did not is very complicated.

San Lumen wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Maryland didn't secede, there's no reason to have monuments to a country that was never even in Maryland. They belong on the national battlefields.

Maryland's history in that regard is rather complicated. Its not cut and dry as one might think. There was a lot of confederate sympathy in Maryland. It was a slave state after all. Roger Taney the author of the Dred Scott decision was from Maryland.

These monuments should not destroyed but Im also conflicted as to weather they should be taken down.

Yes, but ultimately it stayed in the Union. The statues in Baltimore feel decidly less like a homage to Marylanders who fought for the Confederates and more a homage to what they fought for, which, especially among Maryland Confederates, was slavery.

It's best for Confederate statues not to stand in a sewer in the first place.

San Lumen wrote:

The Widening Gyre wrote:As I said in the other umpteen iterations of this thread, they're cheap Jim Crow era propaganda pieces that should have been destroyed years ago. Good riddance.

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.

Crockerland wrote:

The Widening Gyre wrote:As I said in the other umpteen iterations of this thread, they're cheap Jim Crow era propaganda pieces that should have been destroyed years ago. Good riddance.

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.

Seangoli wrote:

New Decandsor wrote: Jesus Christ. It's been a hundred and fifty years and people still can't get over this? They definitely shouldn't be destroyed, if they wish to take them down, they should be placed in a museum. Continuously seeing people wanting to take down these monuments all the time just tells me that people can't get over it and move forward.

Jim Crow laws were still in place in these states until 40 years ago. Many of these states see deep-seeded institutional racism in them. These Confederate Monument empower and embolden racist Confederate apologist nostalgia, and legitimizes them politically.

You saying it's over means you do not fucking get it. It's not over. There are people who are still wistful about the Confederacy, and are apologists about the purpose of it. Hell, there are many in the South who actually believe the racist shit that the Confederacy was founded on. And these monuments legitimize those people in the public and political world.

Imagery and messages fucking matter, and these cities are laudable for sending the clearest message they can that this bullshit is unacceptable, that the Confederacy is not some wistful thing to look back at with nostalgia, and there is no room for racist apologists in the Modern day.

Jim Crow laws were still in place in these states until 40 years ago. Yeah, until 40 years ago. When I say it's over I'm saying that the war itself is over. The people who fought in the war are long dead. The Confederacy ended in 1865. Their influence definitely stretched to the Jim Crow Laws, but the war overall is over. The only thing that is left is rednecks just stirring the pot. Let me know when they actually have some major political influence today rather than just being a group of people that want some influence and a group of people that the world has left behind.
You saying it's over means you do not fucking get it. Do you even want a respectful conversation or not? I don't fucking get it? The only damn reason that rednecks crawl out from their trailers now a days is due to people removing the monuments. People removing the monuments and rednecks haven't got the memo yet and that's the truth.

New Decandsor wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Baltimore has now become the next municipality to announce they are going to remove confederate monuments

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/in ... a14d4e2627

Some on the city council have called for the monuments to not only be removed but be destroyed.

Im very conflicted about this. On the one hand these were people who fought against the country and fought a rebellion but it is a part of history and history should never be forgotten.
But on the other they are memorializing people who fought against what the country stands for. People like Justice Roger Taney whom one of the monuments in Baltimore is of authored the infamous Dred Scott decision. A bust or statue of him should not be destroyed as it was the Dred Scott decision that helped lead to the civil war.

If places want to remove them they should be put in museums but certainly not destroyed.

What's your thoughts NSG on this contentious issue?

Jesus Christ. It's been a hundred and fifty years and people still can't get over this? They definitely shouldn't be destroyed, if they wish to take them down, they should be placed in a museum. Continuously seeing people wanting to take down these monuments all the time just tells me that people can't get over it and move forward.

If you're so over it, then why do you think the monuments are so important to preserve?

Most of them aren't all that remarkable from an artistic point of view. It's good that some of them end up in museums so that people can still get a sense of the type of statuary people were making in the post-war South, but it's not essential that EVERY monument gets preserved. If one of these specific monuments in Baltimore is artistically remarkable, then maybe you'd have a point. If it's just another stone slab or a mediocre statue of a guy in uniform, it's not that important to preserve it. I know that there are Confederate monuments elsewhere in Maryland that are still there. The town where my parents live had a controversy a couple years back about a Confederate statue, and I forget exactly what they did, but the statue wasn't destroyed.

It's kind of like old military equipment. We have war museums where they collect old military equipment and make exhibits to show people how wars were fought in the past, but we don't need to preserve EVERY piece of equipment that the military ever makes.

Vivida Vis Animi wrote:

Dylar wrote:Well, it was for States' Rights. Not the South. Nor slavery. Which is why I am also against people outright banning the Confederate flag. Especially since we still sell Soviet flags and copies of "Mein Kampf"

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.