avatar
34 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Agree
  • Unsure
  • Disagree
  • 2 years ago

    Not only is your position unsupported but there are a number of different positions that support the removal of the Confederate statues. To say that there is a cohesive movement driving these actions is one thing, but to claim that the movement has plans to remove or abridge the Constitution is sheer speculation and I would venture, is an attempt at fear mongering.

    • 2 years ago

      @jrountrey Why not? It was made by slave owners in a time of slavery. Isn't the document a shrine to their biased worldview?

    • 2 years ago

      @meta_self You make it sound like ALL the founding fathers were slave owners, which is clearly not true. And, NO, it is not a shrine to slave owners. In fact, it's a contradiction to slave owners. We all know it says "All men are created equal," which is a clear contradiction to southern white slave owners who did not consider blacks or women equal. And, you're pretending to know the mindset of people you disagree with (you're creating a strawman argument) by suggesting they want to do away with the U.S. Constitution.

    • 2 years ago

      @dorothy8532 Most of them were slave owners, and all of them had bigoted (by today's standards) views about other cultures and peoples.

      I don't think it's a shrine to that. But those who are offended by Confederate statues think that. Remember, those statues were not erected to praise slavery or to laud the Confederacy over the union.

    • 2 years ago

      @meta_self I can either (A) challenge your assertion that "Most of them were slave owners," or simply call BS. Only four of the original 13 colonies were southern slave states, Virginia, North and South Carolina and Georgia. That means 9 were non-slave states. When you count only white men (not women and slaves) Virginia and Pennsylvania were tied with a little over 100,000 population followed by Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maryland. In fact, those 4 southern slave states had a combined voting population of approximately 228,000 white men. The remaining 9 northern states had a combined population of approximately 531,000 white men. Delegates were chosen based on population.

    • 2 years ago

      @billj710 A isn't refuted. Most of them had slaves. Jefferson and Washinton did.

  • 2 years ago

    A bit far-fetched don't you think..? Unless you have some type of evidence/ supporting arguments? As far as I know US Constitution is sacred for All Americans regardless of their values

  • 2 years ago

    Broad movements don't usually have "ultimate" aims. Specific focused groups do, but there is no specific group behind removing these statues, it is part of the larger culture war.

    Most leftists are very fond of the Constitution, especially the bill of rights. It is the underpinning of the civil rights movement on the left.

    The Confederate statues are mostly about changes within the South where urban populations have become less nostalgic about the Confederacy and more actively vocal about opposing the culture that is. They don't want to honor the Confederacy or be represented by its heroes. That is their choice as a civic body.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried If the idea was to remove people who have something to do with slavery, then the founding document was created in such a milieu by people with bigoted values.

    • 2 years ago

      @meta_self But that is not the goal. The goal is to remove symbols championing the Confederacy because it fought to preserve slavery against the political tide to abolish it. That is a lot more than being associated with it.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried It's facile to think that once the movement for removal of history is validated it will then stop.

      It's an entity and needs reasons to continually justify its existence.

      Under this stream of thought (i.ie removing history to sanctify it) what reason is there to keep a document that was created by white slave-owning bigots, for white slave-owning bigots?

    • 2 years ago

      @meta_self So you are arguing for a slippery slope on general principle? That is a logical fallacy. Many advocates stop at some point and for a range of reasons. The more radical a view the fewer supporters it will find, and without popular support, state actions like these are not possible.

      The statues came down by virtue of representative government making decisions. There is no indication they will go further than they have or that there would be popular support for ceasing to honor the founding farthers.

      And this is not about removing history. It is about what we choose to put in a place of honor in town square. That is decidedly not a matter of history, it is a matter of the values of the community as it exists today.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried Well, it's an informal fallacy- so the logical structure is valid.

      My question wasn't rhetorical but it does make a point on its own. Can you answer it?

      Under this stream of thought (i.ie removing history to sanctify it) what reason is there to keep a document that was created by white slave-owning bigots, for white slave-owning bigots?

    • 2 years ago

      @meta_self It's a fallacy (informal though it be) unless you can show us that there is a logical reason we should expect it to happen. I gave you a reason and explanation of why it would not. That the more radical the desire, the less support it will have and thus will fail in its objectives.

      You would need to show me a reason why we should expect it to carry on and cause this effect.

      I answered your question by pointing out the underlying motivation you describe is not the motivation in play. Thus it is a moot question. It's like I asked, "since pigs can fly, whats to stop them from starting an airline?" I can't really answer it because pigs can't actually fly.

      You state that we are removing history to sanctify it. That is not what is happening. They are removing honorary monuments celebrating certain figures. The museums still have all their statues of Lee and other Confederate figures. So do the battlegrounds and other historical sites. These statues exist specifically to honor and celebrate these figures. They are being removed because these communities no longer celebrate these figures and what they stand for.

      Do you have a response or evidence that says otherwise? I think you simply don't understand the motivations of the people doing this.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried What are these satues celebrating?

    • 2 years ago

      @meta_self They celebrate two things primarily. The valor of individual leaders in the Confederacy, and the political ideology they fought for under the Confederate banner.

      Just because the Confederacy was defeated didn't mean the south was contrite about the values they fought for. After reconstruction, they did their level best to try and assert those cultural values again and were very successful up until the end of segregation and the civil rights battles of the 60s.

      These modern movements are those communities finally rejecting those old ideologies that were at the heart of the confederacy.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried That's wrong.

      They are celebrated for specific things they did like founding municipalities and institutions, not the whole person or their worldview.

      If you enjoy Micheal Jackson's music does that mean you endorse or are celebrating pedophilia (or at least sleeping with children)?

    • 2 years ago

      @meta_self You are either lying to me, or lying to yourself. What municipalities and institutions did Robert E Lee found exactly?

      His career was a military one. And he was the principle hero of the convederacy in the civil war. That is why he is honored in the former confederacy.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried He helped Mexico gain independence. Washington and Lee University was named after him. He started the first programs in business and journalism and encouraged the growth of the sciences.

      https://www.wlu.edu/presidents-office/about-the-presidents-office/history-and-governance/past-presidents/robert-e-lee

    • 2 years ago

      @meta_self You need history lessons. Mexico gained its independence from Spain in 1821, 44 years before Lee was even born. The Mexican American war (in which he participated but was not a major figure) was a war in which American conquered Mexico to acquire territory for the US.

      Administering a college doesn't make you a state hero. He got that job because he was already the greatest hero of the Confederacy for his fighting in the Virginia theater.

      Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. Lee was a hero of the confederacy because he was their only hope at victory and proved to be a dominant military commander for the south. That is why he is honored.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried Sorry, he helped Mexico in battle.

      Well, that's your opinion.

      I don't think any of the statues say anything about slavery or putting confederate values over American ones.

    • 2 years ago

      @meta_self He did not help mexico in battle. Grab a history book sir and read about the Mexican American war.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried Refer to the .edu link I posted on the matter.

    • 2 years ago

      @meta_self I did my man. It said he served in the Mexican war, they mean the Mexican-American war. We fought Mexico in that war. Lee was in the American army that invaded the Mexico mainland under General Scott. Nearly all of the significant military figures in the Civil war served in the Mexican American war. Grant (the most famous Union General in case you didn't know) served with Lee in the same force towards the end of the war.

      Time for you to do some reading. Its fine to not know something, foolish to choose to stay ignorant once you hve learned you were wrong.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried Nevertheless, it doesn't mean that the statues are there to celebrate racism, the triumph of the Confederacy, or slavery.

      But many leftists do believe that. Therefore there's nothing stopping that train of thought from carrying over to other domains.

    • 2 years ago

      @meta_self They represent the Confederacy, not its triumph since it was defeated, but its spirit of rebellion and southern independence, the independence that was struck to defend the right to keep slaves.

      You tried to tell me it was about men who built institutions and you were flat out wrong. The liberals are correct about this.

      And you are also wrong that they want to carry that to other domains, that is just paranoid thinking on your part. Come up with some real evidence instead of just shooting off your opinion and perhaps someone will believe you. But as it stands, you are about the only person who thinks what you are saying is accurate.

      If you think you are correct, prove what you say, don't just say it over and over.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried He did create the first business and journalism schools. That's an institution.

      The civil war wasn't over keeping slaves. It was about Union overreach and tariffs. That's why the war started at a fort which collected tariffs.

      My reason is that if these statues are being brought down purely because of these individuals association with pre-modern values, then there's no stopping that perspective from being applied to the majority of historical figures, who would be considered bigoted by today's standards.

      I can't prove a sociological speculation. I can only show why it's reasonable.

      My solution is to provide more context in the form of a statement on a plaque next to the statue.

    • 2 years ago

      @meta_self Sorry meta is not worth talking to you further on this subject. Brag some history books and get educated on this topic. Then get back to me.

    • 2 years ago

      @sigfried I conceded the factoid about the US-MEX war. But my point hasn't been addressed.

      What would be a reason to stop someone from carrying that behavior toward other US political figures with unsavory pasts filled with bigotry and the like?

  • 2 years ago

    Can you define pre-modern values?