Castlevania Dungeon Forums

Off Topic => Off Topic => Topic started by: Mooning Freddy on August 26, 2017, 03:35:49 AM

Title: The Legacy of General Lee
Post by: Mooning Freddy on August 26, 2017, 03:35:49 AM
The removal of the statue of Robert E. Lee has sparked conflicting emotions in people.

I remember several years ago, I had a debate here about the civil war. The war was complex and tragic and some people here tried to explain how the war wasn't all black-and-white (no pun intended). But the interesting detail here was that someone defended general Lee as a patriot who decided to fight for his state despite his hatred of slavery. Apparently, this view of Lee is quite popular, presenting him as a righteous man, who, perhaps made the wrong choices. But is that view of Lee historically correct?

Quote
The myth of Lee goes something like this: He was a brilliant strategist and devoted Christian man who abhorred slavery and labored tirelessly after the war to bring the country back together.


How much of this is true? This article, that my friend sent me, argues that the the view, that is apparently quite common, of Robert Lee as a noble man is historically untrue and is a result of Southern propaganda.

Quote
In the Richmond Times Dispatch, R. David Cox wrote that “For white supremacist protesters to invoke his name violates Lee’s most fundamental convictions.” In the conservative publication Townhall,  Jack Kerwick concluded that Lee was “among the finest human beings that has ever walked the Earth.” John Daniel Davidson, in an essay for The Federalist, opposed the removal of the Lee statute in part on the grounds that Lee “arguably did more than anyone to unite the country after the war and bind up its wounds.” Praise for Lee of this sort has flowed forth from past historians and presidents alike.
This is too divorced from Lee’s actual life to even be classed as fan fiction; it is simply historical illiteracy.
White supremacy does not “violate” Lee’s “most fundamental convictions.” White supremacy was one of Lee’s most fundamental convictions.

After reading the article, I had no choice but to scratch my head. For some reason, a historical narrative was forged, by which many people today see Lee as an abolitionist. But apparently, there is plenty of evidence that nothing could be more far from the truth. By this article, not only was Lee a staunch supporter of slavery, he was a cruel slave-owner, and extreme racist who treated blacks as sub-human, believed that the black man does not deserve to be free, murdered Union black soldier prisoners during the war, and believed that slavery is a cause supported by God.
If indeed that is the case, it makes you wonder how many details in history today have been "revised" by people who tried to wash away the shame of fighting for the wrong side? Anyway, this is an interesting read:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/)
Title: Re: The Legacy of General Lee
Post by: Dracula9 on August 26, 2017, 07:09:03 AM
It depends largely on the source and how that source defines his qualities.

Some (wrongly) declare he hated the practice, and some (also wrongly) declare him the Big Bad of all racism in the South ever.

Both are half-wrong. Though the notion that there's a shitload of Southern propaganda painting him as a hero and bringing him up on a pedestal is completely correct. There's a lot of bullshit to sift through about this guy, which is why you'll see I refer to his personal letters and writings more than those of the press at the time.

If there's one thing from the propaganda that's somewhat accurate, it's the "fought for his state despite [misgivings]" thing. Lee was actually against the secession, very vocally so, but he was democratically outvoted by his people. After that, he went into a mindset of "I don't like their choice, I don't agree with it, but my people have spoken so I'll fight for what they've chosen."

Which is commendable as far as sacrificing personal pride/stakes for the greater perceived will/good of one's people goes...but there is a line between valuing the votes of many over the dissent of one and going all with horrible things. While the mindset the guy had over this particular thing was admirable, the actual context just shows how misguided his moral fiber was--would seem he'd rather let a thing he knew to be terrible and would cause huge problems occur than be a dissident and stand against it. This was a bit of a running theme with Lee's moral compass.

From his letters (which I can track down and cite if necessary), it was not a case of "I hate slavery" OR "slavery's good because fuck these people." His writings tell of a mindset wherein he considered it a "good thing" for the black populace.

He did indeed view them as subhuman, but not necessarily in a malicious light. The same letters belay a stance where he believed them to be "unfinished" and in need of tough lessons and hardship to progress the race forward, albeit this sentence is paraphrasing the hell out of it. He believed this "hard lesson" to be the practice of slavery, and believed it to be greenlit by the man upstairs--ergo, the letter says in similar wording that "yeah, slavery's got some pretty deplorable shit happening to these people, but God's basically allowing it to happen so it must be part of his Plan for these people and as a godly man it is my duty to carry out this practice even though I'm fully acknowledging there's some inhuman cruelty going on within it."

Now despite being a Southerner, I'm by no means a Lee apologist or rationalist. I just prefer for facts to be reasonably straight and/or, more importantly, people throwing around accusations throw them around properly and fairly. Lee was by all means a racist, but by his own writings he seemed to be more of a "oh these poor savages, I must help advance them as is my place as the Holy White Man™ in the service of God" kind of racist than the "blacks aren't people, fuck them, they deserve violence and pain and death and hatred, fuck all of them, they can all die for all I care" kind.

Neither's good, but I would argue that one (the latter) is considerably more dangerous than the other, since the former at least MARGINALLY comes from a place of thinking one's being helpful. Unabashed hatred and misguided zeal are both dangerous and problematic, but misguided zeal has a bit more chance to be dissuaded and talked down than blind hate.

Now I'm completely ignoring all the other facets of the guy's character--whole bunch of sources, some again by his own pen, that illustrate a complex individual who was neither wholly good nor wholly evil (as is the norm with hated historical figures). We've got letters to his wife talking about how doing good is what makes life valuable and his own measurements in that department filled him with despair, which corroborates the aforementioned mindset he seemed to be in, and other such things. None of it justifies what he did, but I'm not a big purveyor of tunnel-focusing on a singular aspect of a person when debating their quality of character, no matter how horrible that singular aspect is or was.

But the whole statue situation's pretty much a simple thing for me--I fully understand and endorse wanting to remove honorable trophy-type representations of people who performed or oversaw horrible acts of inhumanity. I really do. I'm from the South, and every Southerner has to make peace with that war sooner or later in some fashion, and I'm on the side that wants to learn from the mistakes and horrors rather than take the easy route and just repeat them.

But at the same time, I'm very much against what can eventually amount to historical censorship--remove all the remnants and reminders of the horrible things we've done in the past, and what's left to learn from and teach us not to repeat? Take the thing down from its pedestal, that's one thing, I'm agreeable to that. But destroying it? That just sweeps a nugget of history under the rug because it's unpleasant. And I'm not okay with that.

Plus, there's a GRAND irony in the fact that Lee openly stated he didn't want any statues of himself made when the war was over, out of a worry that it would cause the wounds of that war to never close and keep reopening and keep people unable to move on from the mindsets that led to all the atrocities--lo and behold, the old bugger was spot-on. Who woulda thunk it?
Title: Re: The Legacy of General Lee
Post by: Mooning Freddy on August 26, 2017, 09:16:09 AM
Interestingly, in my debate with my friend I discussed this historical development.The legacy of the Confederacy was somewhat normalized overtime, to the point people would argue that confederate symbols have nothing to do with racism; this normalization is quite evident in America: from The Dukes of Hazzard to Pantera, The confederate war flag was transformed into a symbol of Southern pride despite its controversial history.
But here's the detail that struck me from what my friend said: there was a historical correlation between the construction of Confederate monuments, the years when the KKK was most active, and the Jim Crow laws.
Looking back, it seems like we are trying to separate the two: the religious arguments for slavery, and racism or "scientific racism".
It seems the two prospered together. Slavery was always un-Christian; But since the Roman era, it was normalized into Christianity, especially in the new world. It is possible that the Christian justification for slavery was based on an idea that Africans were not Christians, and slavery could be a process that would eventually turn them Christian; but with any sort of explanation given, it was an incredible hypocrisy, and ironically the hypocrisy of Christian arguments for slavery were somehow transformed overtime into a distorted idea that supporters of slavery were somehow against slavery, only because they viewed slavery as a "necessary evil"

And here's what I can say about this... From a philosophical point of view, this was not unusual. An evolution from authoritarian societies into free societies came with a lot of hypocrisy. Liberal traditions still carried xenophobia and sexism with them, among other social ills. And without equality before the law there could be no true freedom. I suppose Aristotle is to blame. But racism was always there. And racism was worse than hatred, I tell you this, because hatred is widely understood as foolish, emotional, irrational, while racism is presented as rational. The KKK are seen as hateful. They are not; The KKK never "hated" black people, if you study their history. they merely saw them as animals, to be harassed, raped or killed at will, for their own amusement. This behavior was rational to them. And what is rational is normalized.
Title: Re: The Legacy of General Lee
Post by: Jorge D. Fuentes on August 26, 2017, 09:23:52 AM
My opinion:

Take down the statues.
Then, place them in a museum where the proper context of the statues can be studied and learned.

That way, they are not standing up as the propaganda devices that they once were (some statues were erected waaaay after the Civil War, in the Jim Crow era, in the 50's or so, before the Civil Rights Act), but rather can be appreciated in a proper context.
Title: Re: The Legacy of General Lee
Post by: Dracula9 on August 26, 2017, 09:30:05 AM
My opinion:

Take down the statues.
Then, place them in a museum where the proper context of the statues can be studied and learned.

That way, they are not standing up as the propaganda devices that they once were (some statues were erected waaaay after the Civil War, in the Jim Crow era, in the 50's or so, before the Civil Rights Act), but rather can be appreciated in a proper context.

This. So much this.

Quote from: Mooning Freddy
And racism was worse than hatred, I tell you this, because hatred is widely understood as foolish, emotional, irrational, while racism is presented as rational. The KKK are seen as hateful. They are not; The KKK never "hated" black people, if you study their history. they merely saw them as animals, to be harassed, raped or killed at will, for their own amusement. This behavior was rational to them. And what is rational is normalized.

Well, of course. I use the word "hate" and its like as the generality--obviously we wouldn't say a big game hunter or cattle farmer's views towards their query/prey are "hateful" in nature, but the ballgame becomes different when you introduce the human element into the mindset. "Hate" as I used in-context is merely a catch-all to represent the general "deplorable acts of cruelty and violence upon fellow humans" situations which would take all day to list in full detail.
Title: Re: The Legacy of General Lee
Post by: X on August 26, 2017, 10:10:57 AM
Quote
My opinion:

Take down the statues.
Then, place them in a museum where the proper context of the statues can be studied and learned.

That way, they are not standing up as the propaganda devices that they once were (some statues were erected waaaay after the Civil War, in the Jim Crow era, in the 50's or so, before the Civil Rights Act), but rather can be appreciated in a proper context.

I agree with this option as well.

As for racism? It is derived from hate which comes from fear. Fear of another race because they are so different (visually, religiously, etc) then others. This fearful mindset is derived from a lack of knowledge. When there's no knowledge about something (or someone) our egos will step in. Knowledge defeats fear. The more you know someone or someones who are different, the less inclined you are to fear or hate them. I personally see absolutely no acceptance or tolerance for things like racism. It was, is, and forever will be an unacceptable practice. One of the many lessons that Jesus taught that the Romans threw out the window was that ALL peoples' are equal under the eyes of god. No more, no less. A simple lesson like so many others they did not care for.
Title: Re: The Legacy of General Lee
Post by: Ratty on August 26, 2017, 01:03:47 PM
Oh boy, here we go.

For a bit of background- I live in the American south (a border state during the war) I can see a confederate flag flying from some guy's garage about a mile from my house, and another one flying in a yard not a mile from that. I live within easy driving distance of a civil war battlefield. And I can tell you that the war was UNEQUIVOCALLY about slavery, despite the almost invariable protestations of my southern countrymen.

The article you've got is accurate, but to go beyond just Lee himself to what he fought for...

People who try to separate the confederate cause from slavery are at best misinformed and at worst willfully spreading misinformation. You cannot separate the Confederacy from slavery, the two were inextricably linked culturally and economically. Slaves and land to work them were the biggest source of wealth in the Antebellum South, and for a good while the fastest road to wealth to. The South controlled "King Cotton" (like today's "Big Oil" etc.) due to slavery and believed Britain or another foreign power would be forced to intervene on their behalf to secure it. Both Britain and France came close to doing so once or twice.

Southern apologists will be quick to point out that "most southern soldiers were poor and didn't own slaves" but neglect to mention how the common soldiers still had a vested interest in continuing slavery because:

1. The existence of slaves put them in a higher caste/social status. Even if poor whites had nothing, they were FREE and white therefore superior. When General Lee first took power he had defensive works built around the Confederate Capital of Richmond, and he was roundly lambasted by Southerners and their press for making white soldiers do some of the "slave's work" of building fortifications. (And because at that point in the war building defensive positions was viewed by many as "cowardly" as opposed to meeting the enemy openly on the field of battle.)

2. There was always the hope of getting slaves and land for them to work to build up the common white man's own family fortune.

3. Poor whites did not want increased competition for jobs from free blacks. (Neither did thousands upon thousands in the North who vehemently opposed emancipation.)

4. Many of them believed blacks were dangerous animals who would roam the countryside raping, murdering and pillaging/seeking revenge if freed. Indeed the whole southern emphasis on martial prowess can be traced back to this. Just like the ancient Spartans white southerners lived in perpetual unspoken fear of a rebellion by slaves who in many cases outnumbered them. and developed a militaristic honor-based culture to deal with it. Many Northerners had a similar view of blacks.

Now, here's where it gets tricky- the South seceded to protect slavery, but the north did not initially go to war to end slavery. Ending slavery only became a secondary war aim for the North many months into the war, and justified at (Northern) home primarily as a way of weakening Southern resources. But there can be no doubt that the south seceded because they were afraid that the election of Lincoln, who was from a broadly abolitionist party (though Lincoln himself was a wishy-washy moderate on the subject who going in didn't believe he had the constitutional power to end slavery) signaled that slavery's days were numbered. There can't be any doubt about this from anyone not indoctrinated into the "lost cause" cult, because the seceding confederates TOLD US SO in their own words:

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states (https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech)

Quote from: Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens, 1861
Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

CASE. CLOSED.


As for why so many people don't know or deny this, it's part of revisionist history that started almost as soon as the guns stopped firing, immediately Southern generals and others (including the above quoted Stephens) started re-writing history to justify their actions. The North just kind of let them go ahead with this in the name of national unity. This propaganda continued and even ramped up whenever black rights threatened to take hold in the south. Both at the turn of the century and during the civil rights era of the 1960s, which is when most of these "Confederate monuments" were built as a not-so-subtle F U to the black community asking for equality. And this revisionism was far sweeping and influential. Look at "Gone with the Wind", for many decades considered one of if not the best American movie ever made, it's laughably, pathetically plain pro-Confederate and pro-slavery propaganda.

For more information on the war I can't recommend James M. McPherson's "Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era" strongly enough. https://www.amazon.com/Battle-Cry-Freedom-Civil-War/dp/019516895X (https://www.amazon.com/Battle-Cry-Freedom-Civil-War/dp/019516895X)
Title: Re: The Legacy of General Lee
Post by: Dracula9 on August 26, 2017, 01:28:02 PM
Cavalry Ratty?

Cavalratty?

(https://media.giphy.com/media/F9DzQnxx6ZZNm/giphy.gif)

Cavalratty.
Title: Re: The Legacy of General Lee
Post by: Ratty on August 26, 2017, 05:36:12 PM
Cavalry Ratty?

Cavalratty?

Cavalratty.

Yeah, and I agree with Jorge that moving these statues to museums and surrounding them with proper historical context is the way to go. They're a part of history but since they're literally propaganda and always intended as such, they're a part that needs context/clarification/correction.
Title: Re: The Legacy of General Lee
Post by: Dracula9 on August 26, 2017, 09:44:49 PM
But seeing as that's the rational solution...it'll never happen.

As is the norm.
Title: Re: The Legacy of General Lee
Post by: Briraka on August 27, 2017, 06:59:27 AM
actually, i'm all in favor of keeping these confederate statues where they are...
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The Legacy of General Lee
Post by: Abnormal Freak on August 27, 2017, 09:49:43 PM
Title: Re: The Legacy of General Lee
Post by: Dracula9 on August 27, 2017, 10:49:33 PM
>the south is gonna rise again

please no

i live here and my family tree's full of appalachian rednecks and i must admit a part of me does love some of that twangy bluegrass goodness but please no
Title: Re: The Legacy of General Lee
Post by: X on August 28, 2017, 09:37:14 AM
We've got our own share of redneck up here in Canada too. My Dad was one of them, lol. The largest collection of Canadian rednecks all dwell in Alberta  :P
Title: Re: The Legacy of General Lee
Post by: Mooning Freddy on August 28, 2017, 09:45:00 AM


Well, it's not as bad as Johnny Rebel.  :P
Title: Re: The Legacy of General Lee
Post by: Ratty on August 29, 2017, 04:31:09 PM
please no

i live here and my family tree's full of appalachian rednecks and i must admit a part of me does love some of that twangy bluegrass goodness but please no

Well, it's not as bad as Johnny Rebel.  :P

"Two Thousand Maniacs!" (1964) is probably THE original killer/cannibal redneck movie. (Though it has a Brigadoon inspired plot that's obviously not as imitated as the mold set by 1974's "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and others.) It was the second goresploitation film from the original "Godfather of Gore" Herschell Gordon Lewis following "Blood Feast" (1963). I've not seen it personally because I'm more a creature feature guy. But like all horror fans I like to know about the milestones of the genre so just take it from the expert on drive-in movies Joe Bob Briggs.
Title: Re: The Legacy of General Lee
Post by: Flame on September 01, 2017, 02:38:54 PM
The heroic view of Lee is not quite correct, but neither is the villainous one. I think people forget that historical figures were human too. Lee was only a man.

That said, he did not support the civil war, he had no real desire for it. He was a graduate of West Point, just like Grant. It is true however, that he only joined the confederacy because it was his home state. he did not want to fight against his home state, so he decided to fight with it. And when he was enlisted as a general, he did his job. Consider: to the CSA, the Federal Govt in washington was illegitimate and THEY were the legitimate government. So when they had set themselves up, they created a military and filled positions. Lee was chosen as a General in the confederate army, just like Grant was in the Union army.

As for Lee's personal life, If I recall correctly, he was not born into wealth, I think he may have inherited a few slaves, but he was a military man, so for most of his life i don't think he cared much about it one way or another. He DID marry into a wealthy slave owning family though, and the word is he was pretty rough in his discipline of them.

After the war, he was given special pardon, as were most confederate soldiers and military personnel, in the sake of reconciliation and reunification. He was an advocate for the North's re-constructionist efforts, and if I'm remembering properly, he didn't want any statues or special commemoration.

So in a way, it's the Andrew Jackson irony, of a controversial figure who really didn't want specific commemoration, getting it posthumously anyway.

But I think these days people are way too eager to bury the past.

These days, over time the confederacy was sort of flanderized from a bloody and horrible civil war that pitted brother against brother, into a sort of rebellion and rivalry between the north and the south, with little historical or cultural context, since the 1800's are pretty far removed in every way from modern day. The Confederate flag is a prime example. The south has ALWAYS been a very different place from the North culturally, for better and for worse, for one reason or another, and that will never change. since the civil war, the south sort of prided itself in being the rebellious part of the US. as a matter of preserving dignity. Otherwise, what is there to be proud of when you seceded from the union over slavery? The south over time convinced itself that there were other reasons, and to be fair, it's true. Slavery was not the only dividing factor in the secession. Though it was the biggest.

And that just became a part of the southern fiber. That "rebellious streak". Texas own unique history leads them ESPECIALLY to be independent and rebellious.

But to just overnight try to quash what has been a part of southern culture for decades, is pretty ignorant. Though then again, these are the same people who want to get rid of the Columbus statue in NY, so ignorance is basically the order of the day.

Personally, I think leave the statues be. This kind of replacement of confederate statues and such needs to come about organically. It cannot be this mandate imposed on the states from up on high, or it becomes exactly the kind of "aggression" that the south always claims. people are becoming exactly the kind of boogeyman that conservative southerners especially- always complain about, but what's worse is it's done without a hint of irony or self awareness.

Not to mention, the removal of the statues is part of a bigger problem, which is the current trend of historical revisionism and censorship. The idea of erasing and destroying any part of history that could be offensive or unpleasant. (Especially when it fulfills political agendas and ideology) And that is the bigger problem here than just the one statue.

Those who do not learn from history, and in fact actively try to suppress it, are doomed to repeat it. There's a reason political ideology tends to be like a pendulum. one side goes to extremes, and there is pushback to the other direction, et infinitum.
Title: Re: The Legacy of General Lee
Post by: Dracula9 on September 01, 2017, 05:49:32 PM
just wanna go on record here to clarify that me liking certain posts in this thread are because i agree with the moral or historical alignment of them

case in point, flame's post here echoes a lot of my previous sentiments about seeing the whole rather than focusing on the parts, repeating the vicious cycle, etc. etc.

the only thing i disagree with him on is the "leave statues be", but as previously noted i'm very much against blatant destruction--stick that shit in a museum where it can be more readily kept safe from harm and can also be studied and stipulated in proper context

but a specific point i like very much:

Quote
This kind of replacement of confederate statues and such needs to come about organically. It cannot be this mandate imposed on the states from up on high, or it becomes exactly the kind of "aggression" that the south always claims. people are becoming exactly the kind of boogeyman that conservative southerners especially- always complain about, but what's worse is it's done without a hint of irony or self awareness.

as a southern-state dweller with extensive experience with the conservative south, this statement is completely correct

you go around ripping down statues that the south (especially older generations) considers part of their history (regardless of whether or not they even AGREE with what those statues represent), and all you do is confirm long-held suspicions of the "damn yanks comin' to destroy our history" and that just repeats the cycle

worst-case hypothetical speaking, it's not unlike the shit we see ISIS doing blowing up ancient mosques and structures that existed long before them or their agenda (and BEAR WITH the comparison here, it's NOT literal)

it pisses off the people to whom those structures' history belongs and just confirms in their minds that ISIS are just mad destroyers, and while the "tear down confederate monuments" crowd isn't quite on-par with a highprofile terrorist cell (yet)...they have the potential to be seen that way by the people whose history they're destroying

it doesn't even matter if there are southerners who ARE still racist cunts who need a serious reality check

you act the part of the destroyer, you confirm their propaganda and give them an excuse to rally against you

you don't educate and change people's minds by destroying and ripping down things they value, no matter how unpleasant those things might be

tearing-down should come after the edifice "owners" have been educated and made knowledgeable with the alternative, you do it too soon and you're just perpetuating the "FUCK THEM TRYNA ERASE OUR HISTORY" cycle that started the damn civil war in the first place
Title: Re: The Legacy of General Lee
Post by: Belmontoya on September 02, 2017, 07:35:44 AM
It's not about burying history. It's about choosing what parts of history we celebrate.

This man fought against the United States to protect slavery. We don't put statues of generals from opposing armies on our public grounds and certainly not those who propagate slavery and racism. These statues belong in museums, not on pedestals in public spaces.

To suggest that taking the statues off public grounds "erases" the history is insane. The civil war is incredibly well documented and we won't be forgetting who the losers of that war were and what they stood for any time soon.

And the way this happened, with the people having enough of this racist tolerance bullshit standing up and doing something about it.. That's how things happen organically.

They belong in a museum, not as part of our celebrated history. Take them down and replace them with memorials to commemorate those who suffered under slavery.
Title: Re: The Legacy of General Lee
Post by: theANdROId on September 02, 2017, 08:00:13 AM
I'm certain that even the greatest of us have/had flaws, and even the worst of us have/had strengths.  Wherever the statues are (and I do think they should be somehow preserved -- where they are or in a museum I don't think I care) we should see them and learn from both the good and the bad.  Emulate the good while reforming from the bad.

Instead, it seems like we're just making this something else to argue and fight about instead of learning a lesson and responding more intelligently and diplomatically.
Title: Re: The Legacy of General Lee
Post by: Dracula9 on September 02, 2017, 10:54:05 AM
It's not about burying history. It's about choosing what parts of history we celebrate.

This man fought against the United States to protect slavery. We don't put statues of generals from opposing armies on our public grounds and certainly not those who propagate slavery and racism. These statues belong in museums, not on pedestals in public spaces.

To suggest that taking the statues off public grounds "erases" the history is insane. The civil war is incredibly well documented and we won't be forgetting who the losers of that war were and what they stood for any time soon.

And the way this happened, with the people having enough of this racist tolerance bullshit standing up and doing something about it.. That's how things happen organically.

They belong in a museum, not as part of our celebrated history. Take them down and replace them with memorials to commemorate those who suffered under slavery.

Upon closer inspection, I believe it's possible Flame may be coming from a point where the big-time "how to get 'em out of the public" method on everyone's minds are angry crowds ripping them down and destroying them, since that's still recent news.

Could be wrong, though.
Title: Re: The Legacy of General Lee
Post by: Flame on September 04, 2017, 01:56:16 PM
no no, that's partially what I was on about.

that kind of change needs to come naturally from the community, and not from a place of anger and hatred and politics as it is today.

I advocate for keeping them there now, because it has become such a politicized issue to take them down, and taking them down would be capitulating to the mob of protesters and historical revisionists.

Before this, I might not have cared one way or another, (I don't live in the south so it's not really a part of my culture) but as things stand now, the best thing to do is keep them there.

There is also, again, the matter of culture to be discussed. This is many southerners culture. And while you can say many things about honoring other Confederates, a statue of a career general who was mostly apolitical about his part in the war, isn't the worst one out there.

The civil war is a very complicated thing politically and legally, because after the war, most of the confederate army was pardoned for the sake of reunification.

Confederate veterans were considered American veterans with all the same legal rights as a union veteran.

As far as technicalities go, General Lee is not considered a traitor or dissident or anything like that. He received special pardon, as did most high ranking brass. (as in, they needed to specifically apply for a pardon, unlike the rank and file who got a blanket pardon proclamation) And is basically considered just another American General, even if he was in the Confederate Army. There's also something to be said for his efforts in aiding and promoting the north's reconstruction policies after the war.

So if nothing else, Lee is a very interesting historical character from the Civil War, for whom a statue isn't as offensive as you might think, and can serve a very good purpose educationally. Because if we start taking down statues based solely on who was a slave owner, that becomes a very slippery slope.

I don't know where I'm going with all this, but that's that.
Title: Re: The Legacy of General Lee
Post by: TheouAegis on September 10, 2017, 11:11:55 PM
I'm only opposed to them tearing down statues of Lee because my mom's descended from him.
Title: Re: The Legacy of General Lee
Post by: Flame on September 11, 2017, 10:34:39 AM
Hey that's pretty neat.

Small world eh?