[NEWS] Confederate monuments are being torn down in the South

[Wesley Williams]

Also I don't see what a statue not being controversial at the time of creation has to do with anything. If there were a giant statue of Riddler in the middle of Berlin, I would expect them to get rid of it.

Reminders of horrible things that happened in the South in the past? If you mean the Civil War then perhaps we should remove all the monuments that are Civil War related in states from the North too.

As for it not being controversial at the time, I mean that it was built after the Civil War ended and people from the US/what was called the North didn't see anything wrong with it. Instead, people are looking at an over a century old piece of history from our country's past and becoming triggered by it, deciding that our country's history doesn't fit in with their "perfect" vision of it, and removing it. All for the sake of pushing forward an agenda that simplifies the Civil War into an issue of racism and forces the identities of "good" and "evil" onto the North and South. Trying to equate Robert E. Lee to Riddler makes no sense, so I won't argue that one.

[Ad Bot]

[Rally]

anyone who lived in south africa at the time knows first-hand that history was very kind to Mandela. the Umkhonto we Sizwe did some terrible things and while Mandela can't be blamed for all of it he was certainly responsible for enough of it.

[Ceist]

if they're going to be relocated to a museum, then what's the real harm? it's not like they're going to be destroyed. we have plenty of positive monuments that have been relocated to museums, albeit for other reasons.

[LeisureSuit912]

I'd say the statue that's actually being taken down has debatable meaning but Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis are fine by me for movement

Yeah Robert E Lee's cool

[Nonnel]

Reminders of horrible things that happened in the South in the past? If you mean the Civil War then perhaps we should remove all the monuments that are Civil War related in states from the North too.

But like I said, they're not being destroyed, they're going to be put elsewhere (like a museum) where they can be put in proper context rather than be seen as commemorations to the people they depict.

Trying to equate Robert E. Lee to Riddler makes no sense, so I won't argue that one.

Jefferson Davis. For Lee, pretend I said some national socialist general. Case in point, they're high ranking leaders of a country that was built specifically so that slavery and systematic racism could stay strong.

[Rigel]

the south will fall again

[Wesley Williams]

But like I said, they're not being destroyed, they're going to be put elsewhere (like a museum) where they can be put in proper context rather than be seen as commemorations to the people they depict.
Jefferson Davis. For Lee, pretend I said some national socialist general. Case in point, they're high ranking leaders of a country that was built specifically so that slavery and systematic racism could stay strong.

You act like the North didn't also own slaves. Many of the people that owned slaves were kind to them and it was somewhat like being a part of the family. Look at Thomas Jefferson or just all the presidents on our money, depictions in the Song of the South etc. It was something that had become a part of everyday life and the American economy, so freeing your slaves would put you at a distinct disadvantage to those plantations that maintained slaves. Obviously nobody thinks slavery was a good thing looking back on it, but had you been around during that time I highly doubt you would equate it to the methodical genocide of the Jewish people.
Inb4 somebody accuses me of supporting slavery

When Virginia declared its secession from the Union in April 1861, Lee chose to follow his home state, despite his personal desire for the country to remain intact and an offer of a senior Union command.

They believed that slavery existed because God willed it and they thought it would end when God so ruled. The time and the means were not theirs to decide, conscious though they were of the ill-effects of Bro slavery on both races. Lee shared these convictions of his neighbors without having come in contact with the worst evils of African bondage. He spent no considerable time in any state south of Virginia from the day he left Fort Pulaski in 1831 until he went to Texas in 1856. All his reflective years had been passed in the North or in the border states. He had never been among the blacks on a cotton or rice plantation. At Arlington, the servants had been notoriously indolent, their master's master. Lee, in short, was only acquainted with slavery at its best, and he judged it accordingly. At the same time, he was under no illusion regarding the aims of the Abolitionists or the effect of their agitation.

Totally a national socialist.

[Ipquarx]

If the monuments are being put in a museum instead... Well honestly that's even better than them being strewn randomly about the town, imo.

[e-maxx]

I don't have an issue with them going in a museum but imo If they were in a historic part of town they should of stayed

[Nonnel]

You act like the North didn't also own slaves. Many of the people that owned slaves were kind to them and it was somewhat like being a part of the family. Look at Thomas Jefferson or just all the presidents on our money, depictions in the Song of the South etc. It was something that had become a part of everyday life and the American economy, so freeing your slaves would put you at a distinct disadvantage to those plantations that maintained slaves. Obviously nobody thinks slavery was a good thing looking back on it, but had you been around during that time I highly doubt you would equate it to the methodical genocide of the Jewish people.
Inb4 somebody accuses me of supporting slavery

Totally a national socialist.

The Union wasn't built specifically to support slavery, the Confederate States were. The presidents who owned slaves were wrong for doing so, but slavery was largely unchallenged when they did. The South seceded when there was a large anti-slavery sentiment across the States, when human rights were beginning to be considered much more important, but they continued to own slaves anyway. They continued to fight for their right to treat human beings as property.
Also how does that quote contradict anything? If he's helping lead the fight for the Confederates, then he is just as bad as everything they support.

[Wesley Williams]

The Union wasn't built specifically to support slavery, the Confederate States were. The presidents who owned slaves were wrong for doing so, but slavery was largely unchallenged when they did. The South seceded when there was a large anti-slavery sentiment across the States, when human rights were beginning to be considered much more important, but they continued to own slaves anyway. They continued to fight for their right to treat human beings as property.

It was far easier for the North, whose economy wasn't based around agriculture, to declare slavery illegal. I'm sure many in the South viewed it as a political move by the North to gain further power in government over the South. Of course, I'm no historian and didn't live during the time, so gauging the general opinion of people in the South is difficult.

If he's helping lead the fight for the Confederates, then he is just as bad as everything they support.

Now there's a blanket statement for you. I think the fact that he was offered a position in Union command shows the respect that the North had for him and that he is hardly the terrible, villainous person modern day liberal historians would have you believe.

It's similar to the rift between Democrats and Republicans. People jump straight to demonizing and generalizing the other side despite the vast spectrum between political opinions and how we are all ultimately citizens that want the best for ourselves and our country.

[Foopster]

"this history contradicts my beliefs, so i better rewrite history to be more like my beliefs!"

Ignorance is strength.

War is peace.

Freedom is slavery.

[otto-san]

i don't think at all that this is some revisionist liberal scheme to make people forget about the confederacy. that seems about the opposite of what a scheming revisionist liberal would want. these monuments weren't there as a grave reminder of the human rights violations of the confederacy, they were made in a time where people wanted to celebrate it. now, i don't give a personal h*ck if some dumb statue erected to honor those brave souls who fought to keep people as property from the 1800s is sitting around in my city somewhere, because i know that the cultural landscape is way different now, and those statues no longer bear the same relevance as they did when they were made. but i also understand that to many people, these statues represent a past where people were unfairly subjugated, stripped of their rights, and treated as subhumans by the governments they were under, and it makes sense to me that people don't want to see that past glorified with grandiose statues that commemorate the individuals who fought tooth and nail to keep that rule in place.

[Nonnel]

I looked into it and the removed statue, the Liberty Monument, is actually pretty horrible. It was made after the Battle of Liberty Place to commemorate the white supremacist group, the White League, who tried to rebel against the New Orleans government.

Here's the original inscription:

[Poliwhirl]

"this history contradicts my beliefs, so i better rewrite history to be more like my beliefs!"

Ignorance is strength.

War is peace.

Freedom is slavery.

are you just saying stuff just to say it, or was this supposed​ to mean something in this context