History, how to deal with it?

[Davin]

Civil War: a war between citizens of the same country.

Treason: the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.

They committed treason. The textbook definition of treason. I will admit that before the civil war, they were trying to secede, but it was still a civil war because they did not succeed at seceding.

Removing statues is not erasing history. Those statues were not put up before the war. Many were put up during the Jim Crow era with the intentions to intimidate black people by showing them that the government, police, and courts are not for them, they are for white people. You want to remember history? Go to a museum, read a book... but don't keep up statues of treasonous, traitors on public grounds of government buildings. Fuck, if you want to remember the history of the American civil war, just go to the south and look at the absence of slaves.

I am personally sickened by the leaders of the silliness sweepstakes at colleges around our country. At the moment,Yale, the bastion of academic uppity excellence is the most egregious of offenders. Then there is Oberlin,  Berkley and a few others who have contracted a "Shit for brains" mentality.  Safe spaces, Trigger warnings, and other snowflake absurdities diminish us. Did we fight WW2 and win because we had a pussy mentality. Did we build this country with the primary aim of political correctness.  Bullshit.  The Pioneers who traveled by wagon train to Oregon were definitely not snowflakes. They had courage to take whatever fates befell them.  Did the West Virginia coal minors of old lie down and give up because their lot was almost hopeless? Hell no, we were collectively made of sterner stuff and we could handle diversity and hardships and derision from our "betters".  We may not have liked or accepted a lower degree of acceptance but we did persevere.

I'm sorry that you have problems with other people doing things that don't affect you, but maybe you should stop being so sensitive about it.

My grandfather while working at Yosemite National Park, on a few occasions, had to escort out racists treating black families like shit. I know it's politically correct to not go around calling black people the "n" word, so my grandfather must be some kind of "shit for brains" snowflake, right? He wanted everyone to be able to enjoy the park without harassment, but I guess he won the silliness sweepstakes by trying to create a place that was safe for everyone. I suppose he was a pussy for fighting against the racism at the time.

He also fought, killed, and captured many Germans during WWII. He single handedly captured about 40 German soldiers (drunk in a bar), and you're calling him a pussy? You're calling him a snowflake? You're saying he has "shit for brains?" Yes, all those things you listed are things my grandfather supported and he was also a bad ass in WWII.

I think what you said there is absurd.

Jefferson and Washington were slave holders, Their faces are spectacularly displayed  on the side of Mount Rushmore. Must we do away with those monuments too?

I see that the Russian and Bannon trolls/bots have been effective in spreading their message. Jefferson and Washington did have slaves, but they didn't kill their American brethren to keep their slaves. It's not that difficult to see the difference.

[Dave]

Leaving those statues up is no different than creating a safe space for racists...

And putting them anywhere in a public place, garden, museum etc, may possibly make that place a "shrine".  Yet they dtill need to be eithin oublic access somehow.

With regards war monuments, I have more sympathy towards those who died whilst in mandatory conscripted service, even if they fought for "the wrong side". I am less sympathetic towards those who made a personal statement by willingly volunteering to fight for an inhumane cause.

But I wonder if commemorating war in any way is not part of the perpetuation and repetition of that processs.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Jefferson and Washington were slave holders, Their faces are spectacularly displayed  on the side of Mount Rushmore. Must we do away with those monuments too?

This is an issue that should be addressed.  The difference, for me, is that Jefferson and Washington are not known and upheld for their positions on slavery, but for their statesmanship and service to the country.  Lee and Jackson and Davis, on the other hand, are known for their actions in the Confederacy.  Jefferson and Washington are in a different category.

Furthermore, while I'm in favor of removing the Confederate flag and the statues, and putting them in museums, I am not in favor of going back and having to rename every town, county or military installation that is named after a Confederate soldier/politician.  It would cause unnecessary confusion to have to rename all these places.  We have a Lee County and a Jeff Davis County in Texas, and a Fort Hood (named after Confederate general John B. Hood).  To rename these would cause legal, geographical and social confusion.  Just get rid of the monuments and move along.

[Arturo]

Leaving those statues up is no different than creating a safe space for racists...

And putting them anywhere in a public place, garden, museum etc, may possibly make that place a "shrine".  Yet they still need to be within public access somehow.

Why? The main thing I am seeing is that when people see history, specifically nazi ww2 and civil war kkk history is that these people who are outcasts resonate with those ideas and turn make those ideas their own. And especially with the internet where there are predators looking to recruit people to their pack. They form groups linked together by one thing, racism.

What's the big deal if statues are taken down? They aren't important. It's just a idolized version of a person who did terrible things. Trying to defend it just implies the message that you support those things. Do you think Germans kept up statues of Hitler?

[Dave]

Leaving those statues up is no different than creating a safe space for racists...

And putting them anywhere in a public place, garden, museum etc, may possibly make that place a "shrine".  Yet they still need to be within public access somehow.

Why? The main thing I am seeing is that when people see history, specifically nazi ww2 and civil war kkk history is that these people who are outcasts resonate with those ideas and turn make those ideas their own. And especially with the internet where there are predators looking to recruit people to their pack. They form groups linked together by one thing, racism.

What's the big deal if statues are taken down? They aren't important. It's just a idolized version of a person who did terrible things. Trying to defend it just implies the message that you support those things. Do you think Germans kept up statues of Hitler?

I think this article has some interesting points, even though, on first reading I some done bits a little confusing (probably reading it too fast.)

The German case is exemplary not because Germans attained closure, but because they came to recognize that closure was neither tenable nor desirable. Instead, the processing of history is like an open wound that slowly heals only with careful debate about the often-explosive issues at stake. The United States can avoid making irreparable mistakes by learning from Germany’s blunders and subsequent course corrections.

Over time, Germans have moved through three distinct phases to tackle the country’s fascist legacy: erasing it, ignoring it, and consigning it to the Vergangenheitsbewältigung — German for “the enduring confrontation with the past.” The experience offers seven lessons for the fight over America’s Confederate past.

http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/commentary/charlottesville-nazis-germany-communists-monuments-trump-20170817.html?mobi=true

[Icarus]

I see that I could get into a serious pissing contest here, especially with Davin who has apparently taken my remarks to be indicative of my membership in the KKK.

Right now I have more pressing matters to deal with: Irma.   She will hit my city dead center on Sunday, according to the latest spaghetti models.

I will be back (I  hope) to defend my position and to examine whether or not it has been interpreted as I had intended. 

[jumbojak]

Jefferson and Washington were slave holders, Their faces are spectacularly displayed  on the side of Mount Rushmore. Must we do away with those monuments too?

This is an issue that should be addressed.  The difference, for me, is that Jefferson and Washington are not known and upheld for their positions on slavery, but for their statesmanship and service to the country.  Lee and Jackson and Davis, on the other hand, are known for their actions in the Confederacy.  Jefferson and Washington are in a different category.

While their positions regarding slavery aren't the reason many hold them in high esteem I personally think that their status as slave owners and promoters of the institution should be more widely discussed, especially in Jefferson's case.

He is too often described as someone who owned slaves but was in principle opposed to the practice of slavery. This couldn't be further from the truth. He was a slave owner who used his office to expand slavery and even attempted to economically cripple the northern states.

The same sort of white washing happens with Lee, Jackson, and Davis. You could perhaps make any argument that Jackson was a traitor to the Union, but somewhat enlightened for a slave owning southerner. You cannot make the same argument for Lee and Davis though. They were morally repulsive individuals, even in their own era.

Regarding monuments, my view is that celebrains of the leadership is inappropriate. But, monuments to the common soldiers, the fellows who largely had no choice about whether they were going to fight and little in the way of vested interests shold be remembered, even if it makes some people uncomfortable.

It's like a memorial to Vietnam veterans. I would be strongly opposed to any commemoration of either the political or military leadership in that conflict, at least in regard to their role in the war. The enlisted men and officers who took part in the actual fighting though, I think we should be reminded of what they lost.

[Dave]

I see that I could get into a serious pissing contest here, especially with Davin who has apparently taken my remarks to be indicative of my membership in the KKK.

Right now I have more pressing matters to deal with: Irma.   She will hit my city dead center on Sunday, according to the latest spaghetti models.

I will be back (I  hope) to defend my position and to examine whether or not it has been interpreted as I had intended.

Good luck, Icarus, with both Irma and Davin.

Keep safe.

[Arturo]

Jefferson and Washington were slave holders, Their faces are spectacularly displayed  on the side of Mount Rushmore. Must we do away with those monuments too?

This is an issue that should be addressed.  The difference, for me, is that Jefferson and Washington are not known and upheld for their positions on slavery, but for their statesmanship and service to the country.  Lee and Jackson and Davis, on the other hand, are known for their actions in the Confederacy.  Jefferson and Washington are in a different category.

While their positions regarding slavery aren't the reason many hold them in high esteem I personally think that their status as slave owners and promoters of the institution should be more widely discussed, especially in Jefferson's case.

He is too often described as someone who owned slaves but was in principle opposed to the practice of slavery. This couldn't be further from the truth. He was a slave owner who used his office to expand slavery and even attempted to economically cripple the northern states.

The same sort of white washing happens with Lee, Jackson, and Davis. You could perhaps make any argument that Jackson was a traitor to the Union, but somewhat enlightened for a slave owning southerner. You cannot make the same argument for Lee and Davis though. They were morally repulsive individuals, even in their own era.

Regarding monuments, my view is that celebrains of the leadership is inappropriate. But, monuments to the common soldiers, the fellows who largely had no choice about whether they were going to fight and little in the way of vested interests shold be remembered, even if it makes some people uncomfortable.

It's like a memorial to Vietnam veterans. I would be strongly opposed to any commemoration of either the political or military leadership in that conflict, at least in regard to their role in the war. The enlisted men and officers who took part in the actual fighting though, I think we should be reminded of what they lost.

I agree with this.

[xSilverPhinx]

Stay safe, Icarus!

[Arturo]

Stay safe, Icarus!

I also agree with this.

[Davin]

I see that I could get into a serious pissing contest here, especially with Davin who has apparently taken my remarks to be indicative of my membership in the KKK.

Well, when you get back, be sure to actually read what I wrote without making these irrational injections.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Jefferson and Washington were slave holders, Their faces are spectacularly displayed  on the side of Mount Rushmore. Must we do away with those monuments too?

This is an issue that should be addressed.  The difference, for me, is that Jefferson and Washington are not known and upheld for their positions on slavery, but for their statesmanship and service to the country.  Lee and Jackson and Davis, on the other hand, are known for their actions in the Confederacy.  Jefferson and Washington are in a different category.

While their positions regarding slavery aren't the reason many hold them in high esteem I personally think that their status as slave owners and promoters of the institution should be more widely discussed, especially in Jefferson's case.

Discuss, sure.  Always discuss and never white wash.  But do you think that Jefferson's face should be removed from Mt. Rushmore, or that his memorial in D.C. should be taken down?  I certainly don't.  I am positive that we could find some morally repugnant quality in any leader we focused on.  Jefferson's contributions to America outweigh his shortcomings, IMHO.   

[Arturo]

If Jefferson were alive today, he would not own slaves.

[Dave]

If Jefferson were alive today, he would not own slaves.

True, not if he lived in the States anyway, he would be a "man of this time" with the mores and values of his culture inculcated into him since birth.  And he was a "man of his time" back then with the mores and values of that period. In a time when almost all rich people had slaves the difference was how they treated them.

I feel that is difficult to judge our antecedents on a practice that was global and had probably existed since Ug's clan captured some useful manpower from his neighbour and maybe sold them on to Og for a few dozen arrow heads or a wooly mamoth carcass. They were obeying the secular laws of the time, we have to leave the observance of ethical, moral and other more personal laws to their personality. That still applies today.

So, do we know if Jefferson fed and clothed his slaves decently, protected them ftom abuse by others and did not overwork them? If he was a good guy in that respect I would say cut the man some slack. If he was a lousy owner who treated them like animals then write that on into his biography and on his epitath as well.

Later: seems he was in two minds: or maybe between a rock and a hard place. He inherited slaves from both his father and father-in-law, so they were now his responsibility. Yet he worked agsinst slavery and berated the British for their maintenance io it. He had a relationship with a half-sister of his late wife, half slave in her parentage. He worked for emancipation so one might think he was also caring, to some degree, with his own slaves. He acted in a responsible manner, hopefully, in a culture he could not instantly change.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_slavery