Confederate flag/statue banning thread

[Aribeth Zelin]

Bucc-ees! [Sorry, feeling silly right now]

 

[Free]

It matters? How? In helping us avoid repeating past mistakes? Great.

So explain to me why the republicans are so keen on repeating the Democrat's past atrocities, and why dem's are committed to a better path?

At any rate, talks about 100 years even earlier.

 

[Free]

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Mississippi governor says he will sign bill, if it passes, to change 'divisive' state flag

"The argument over the 1894 flag has become as divisive as the flag itself and it’s time to end it," Gov. Tate Reeves said in a tweet Saturday.

www.nbcnews.com

Mississippi Learning

 

[Katheryne Helendale]

p.s. Just got around to clicking your link and all I have is "Ewwwwww"

 

[Katheryne Helendale]

At any rate let the record show that all slaveholders were democrats and they fought a war with the republican north to preserve slavery. Democrat party owns responsibility for the KKK almost all democrats. Slavery wasn't an american problem as much as a democrat party problem.

What is a "democrat party"? I have never heard of such a thing except by extreme right-wing nut jobs who can't for some reason say "Democratic Party". At any rate, let the record also show that the Republican and Democratic Parties switched places in the middle of the last century when a bunch of Old South Democrats became Republicans. So when you point at the Democrats as upholders of slavery, you are pointing to the name only. If you're going to spout history, you might want to get it right.

 

[Katheryne Helendale]

Oh fuck off, Bubba. You are not stupid enough to believe the bullshit you're writing.

I'm not so sure of that.

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

What is a "democrat party"? I have never heard of such a thing except by extreme right-wing nut jobs who can't for some reason say "Democratic Party". At any rate, let the record also show that the Republican and Democratic Parties switched places in the middle of the last century when a bunch of Old South Democrats became Republicans. So when you point at the Democrats as upholders of slavery, you are pointing to the name only. If you're going to spout history, you might want to get it right.

Democrat Party (epithet) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The real reason 'Democrat Party' is wrong is not because it's ungrammatical, but because it's incorrect in another way—the party is simply not named the Democrat Party, but the Democratic Party. Calling it anything else is discourteous.

"It is the idiotic creation of some of the least responsible members of the Republican Party."

It's a deliberate discourtesy, so if you see him lamenting about the big bad meanies oh woe is he, so put upon by us savages, you can fling that at him.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Looking at statues isn't, of course, the only way to learn about history.

Reading books is recommended too, or always used to be, and, since we don't actually have many statues of US Civil War generals from either side for me to look at in the UK, that's what I've been doing recently.

Over the last few weeks, I've been reading:

The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism by Edward E Baptist
Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America by Ibram X Kendi
The End of the Myth: From the Frontier to the Border Wall in the Mind of America by Greg Grandin
White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America by Nancy Isenberg

If Bubba (or anyone else, of course) would like to discuss any of them, I would welcome the opportunity.

It's really opened my eyes --I've never before realised what an essential role slavery played, right from the the late C15th onwards, in the original colonisation of America, the development of the US economy and society, the course of US and world history, and the world economy in general, with most of it done on credit issued by European banks like Barings and Rothschilds.

 

[Casey Pelous]

JFC. The point of those statues never was "preserve our history, our beautiful heritage." They were almost universally cheap-ass statues sold during the reformation as "keep out" signs for the white neighborhoods. They have about as much cultural value as a plastic flamingo. The South has had over 100 years -- 100 years! -- to vote to take down the hateful things. They didn't get it done. They never even seriously raised the question.

 

[Free]

Looking at statues isn't, of course, the only way to learn about history.

But it is one of the worst ways.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

But it is one of the worst ways.

I dunno...

 

[Jolene Benoir]

I can see the point that there should be more abolitionist statues and black heroes from the various eras, but I can only accept taking down the existing ones by a vote at least, not by the ignorant mob for political stunts.

Why are you even here, you piece of shit> GTFO. Cannot figure out when you aren't wanted? I guess that is the whole point,? K, yeah. All you are here to do is cause trouble, and it is my fervent hope that the next time you are banned, Cris uses your ip. I know that isn't all that valid, but better than seeing your ugly ass face and words.

Just in case I wasn't clear, fuck right off. Got a hard=on for that? Let me smack that right off ya.

Oh and, whatever incarnation you take, including this one, I shall block, so I shall not see your shit anymore. and hope all follow suit. You shall be deprived of oxygen.

 

[Free]

I dunno...

Important. Also transient and likely forgotten by most people in a few years.

Statues provide a physical consideration of honor or remembrance of someone or something. They can bring a moment of reflection or set off a spark an interest in learning about that person, place or thing, but I don't believe they should be considered artifacts of real knowledge.

Should I post about statues of important figures of history who were not racist a-holes, in fact quite the opposite, and see how they were torn down or defiled anyway? I guess during a revolution, innocent people get hurt. Thankfully, these are just statues.

 

[Casey Pelous]

In my "mind's ear" Bubba sounds exactly like Foghorn Leghorn.

 

[Jolene Benoir]

Revolutions are funny. They get out of control. History shows us that a whole lot of innocent people get swept up in it. It ultimately leads to better, but not so good if you happen to be that innocent person.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Important. Also transient and likely forgotten by most people in a few years.

Statues provide a physical consideration of honor or remembrance of someone or something. They can bring a moment of reflection or set off a spark an interest in learning about that person, place or thing, but I don't believe they should be considered artifacts of real knowledge.

Should I post about statues of important figures of history who were not racist a-holes, in fact quite the opposite, and see how they were torn down or defiled anyway? I guess during a revolution, innocent people get hurt. Thankfully, these are just statues.

Oh, certainly, and what's important about a statue is its cultural significance and history -- why it was created in the first place, and by whom, and how it comes to be standing where it does, and how and why its cultural meaning and significance change over history, and what eventually happens to it.

I was just trying to suggest that, at this particular moment in history, it's possible to learn a lot by looking at the statue, just as it was once possible to learn a lot by looking at the Berlin Wall, and particularly once people started to pull it down.

In a year or so, I hope it''ll be possible to learn all this by looking at the statue in the comfortable and informative environment of a museum rather than in the middle of a public square.

 

[Free]

The funny thing is, statues like the one of General Lee in Richmond were meant to help retain a memory of something that a segment of white people didn't want to forget. Like the Berlin Wall, now it may be used to remember that, as well as something altogether different.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

The funny thing is, statues like the one of General Lee in Richmond were meant to help retain a memory of something that a segment of white people didn't want to forget. Like the Berlin Wall, now it may be used to remember that, as well as something altogether different.

People didn't go to the trouble and expense of erecting the thing in the first place, and the local or federal authorities didn't permit this, simply to help people's failing memories, of course, or as a sort of Madame Tussauds exhibit in stone.

A public statue is an official statement of who the powers that be consider worthy of official commemoration, and in the case of the statues of Confederate Generals, it was very much a statement of who still had money, power and official backing, and how everyone else, especially black Americans, had better remember that.

That's why the heirs -- literal and political -- of the people who paid for the statues are so upset -- we're seeing a very public demonstration of popular revolt against them.

From my side of the Atlantic (I remember this when it happened, and it didn't upset me at all)

The man who blew up Nelson

Fifty years ago this week an Irish republican blew up Nelson's statue in the middle of Dublin - and then the head, chased by police, went on a strange journey.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Grandma Bates]

JFC. The point of those statues never was "preserve our history, our beautiful heritage." They were almost universally cheap-ass statues sold during the reformation as "keep out" signs for the white neighborhoods. They have about as much cultural value as a plastic flamingo. The South has had over 100 years -- 100 years! -- to vote to take down the hateful things. They didn't get it done. They never even seriously raised the question.

Sort of. Here in the South the monuments and statues are part of a more complex context. They are one part of the constant message designed to insure that certain people know their place. As an example, two years ago during construction of a building the graves of a group of slaves were uncovered, and they were quickly and quietly moved to a nearby cemetery. When word got out there was a good deal of outrage from the African American community that the proper notification and care was not extended to the remains, but there was total silence outside of that. At the same time we have a rather large memorial on the main thoroughfare to the local soldiers who were killed in the "War For Southern Independence." Every time there has been talk of moving it to a nearby battlefield you can hear the uproar two counties away. The message to the community is clear.

At the same time, there is some truth to the notion of preserving history. If you look around at the names on buildings, especially on university campuses, those names belong to staunch segregationists. Their own graves have likely been only recently filled, but their immediate families are still around running things. In a context where the names of recent oppressors are still immediately present the monuments from 100 years ago help fill in the details to insure a constant message of the long tradition of state sponsored oppression. The monuments and statues do preserve history, and it is the history of violence and hatred against the descendants of African slaves.

It is more than a little frustrating that the larger context and history is ignored by the national media. The current status of oppression is not a priority, and there is no effort to try and explore the wider ignorance of the local dynamic.