The video in question is this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSFfTG42Jl8
.
Edited by Sivartis on Aug 24th 2018 at 2:20:25 AM
♭What.Call these participation trophies is a bad description. It also reeks of a Strawman Has a Point, because participation trophies can be seen as celebrating mediocrity and giving fake pride to people.
https://satwcomic.com/they-did-their-best
While some were set up during the Civil Rights movement, others were resurrected during 1890's when the war veterans were aging. I believe she is kicking the hornet's nest on this subject. It's a complex subject matter rather than a black and white issue. I do think a good argument is to put many of them into museums as historical landmarks.
The ones that were made during the 1890's can at least be seen in a better light than the ones made during the Civil Rights movement. Also the defeated remembering their dead is not something that is regulated to the South. Japan has tons of World War 2 memorials including those dedicated to the Kamikazi.
There is a good point about how the "Lost Cause" should be deromantized but ironically I do think some people have done some revisionism to claim all of them were just a result of the Civil Rights movement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:World_War_II_memorials_in_Japan
Edited by firewriter on Aug 31st 2018 at 7:57:54 AM
Yeah, it's not like Japan has faced criticism for its own lionization treatment of their involvement in war.
Also statues of the defeated can be found in other countries as well, so calling it participation trophies is really very inaccurate and ironically ignorant.
I did more digging into the statues, and some of these were put up in the 1860s and 1870s, often times they were made in the battlefield again emphasizing some of them were made to remember the dead.
I believe those that were made with malicious intent should move them to museums. Given how Robert E. Lee felt about being honored with statues, I think he would want those of himself taken down and probably put in a museum.
Also white power groups should have no say in this, because they are dicks.
It's funny how Humon calls these Civil War memorials participation trophies, when again Finland has Civil War memorials as well for both sides.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Civil_war_memorials_in_Finland
Edited by firewriter on Aug 31st 2018 at 5:16:06 AM
Was either side of the Finnish civil war actively trying to preserve one of the most wicked institutions mankind ever dreamt as a fundamental keystone of Finnish culture and economy though? Like, the Confederacy was actively trying to preserve an evil institution. There is no reason to honor that.
Say to the others who did not follow through You're still our brothers, and we will fight for youThere is a difference between honoring slavery like some people have said about those made with malicious intent, and honoring those were fallen in battle. The cause that the South was fighting was wrong, on the other hand the people fighting can't be seen as Always Chaotic Evil monsters that can't be remembered. You can remember the soldiers, but not legitimize the cause.
I think people lump all of them together as just being motivated to instill racial terror without actually delving into whether it's actually true. One tidbit is interesting that the Union statues were built around also the same time as the Confederate ones, so remembering the Civil War wasn't only a Southern thing as some people make it out to be.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/19/us/houston-confederate-statue-vandalism-sentencing/index.html
I know some people are rooting for vandalizing these statues, but it comes off as being the ends justifies the means.
Also there is more information about Civil War monuments. One thing that is the reason for why Confederate monuments didn't spring up as fast is because of their broken economy. So, the early ones were raised by the wives, widows and daughters of former Confederate soldiers.
Edited by firewriter on Aug 31st 2018 at 6:54:12 AM
It is a matter of framing. If the aim is to honor those who fallen, victims of a awful system, then they shouldn't be posed as heroes, standing tall in the battlefield. They are not heroes, at best they were victims. No one should be proud for what they done, only feel sad for what happened to them. The Finland monuments listed here are an interesting contrast. The only person depicted is looking down in defeat. The confederates monuments I've seen, meanwhile, often have men look tall on horses, or ready to war.
There is a difference between lamenting those who have fallen and celebrating their cause.
(and, btw, if you are wondering, I *am* against pretty much every war monument ever that lionizes war, the confederate monuments are just more glaring as not only they glorify war they also glorify racism by their very nature)
On top of that, there is also the important matter that, regardless of their possible innocent origins, those monuments are *now* being used as symbols. And since nazis, fascism and racism is on the the rise, their symbol must be stepped on at every opportunity. They shouldn't be being displayed at public space where it gives them a veneer of legitimacy. It emboldens white nationalism and scare those who have reason to fear them.
Also Politifact checked the statement about how these statues only were resurrected during the civil rights era, and it has come out false. It was actually the Confederate flag that went up during this era and not the statues.
I think the reason why some of the statues of the Confederates were built in the Union, is because I have a feeling back then it would have been like building up examples of history instead of the implications it would have today.
From that article:
So, while it is true that the monuments weren't placed due the civil rights movement, they apparently were created as racist statements against African-Americans. And that is frankly the relevant aspect. The main point against them is how they are used and the reason they were erected. The fact they have been a shitty racist thing since the 00' doesn't make it any better. The article explicitly mentioned about how many of them are placed in courthouses and how relevant that is as a message (And, I mean, if the intent was to "just" honor lost people, it is a weird place to put a confederate statue).
Also, according to the report
it seem that while the big spike in monuments happened much earlier, the practice was dying off until the Civil Rights, when it *did* have a mini spike again. And this time it was mostly in schools, which is probably even worse.
The common interpretation that seems to be getting popular about them being used to intimidate blacks does have some holes in them, especially when no one is looking further if that is really the the truth in all the situations. It seems to be more of trying to link correlation with causation without really delving into anything further.
Here’s the thing, we have monuments to the war dead, but that’s not what the confederate states are. They’re states to the war leaders, they depict individuals who are evil, not soilders who died in a war they had no role in starting.
A block of stone with names on it like we have for germany’s WW 2 dead is reasonable, a state of a vicious treasonous slaver ridding a horse is not.
Seriously, how many of the confederate states actully commemorate the soilders who died in the war as opposed to the generals who caused it?
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThere are tons of Christopher Columbus statues around, and he's a controversial figure in today's world due to the revelations of his past actions towards the natives. However, even though he was previously heralded as a hero in the past, it doesn't mean he was used to intimidate Native Americans.
Also for commemorating the dead. One of the vandals for a statue based on a Confederate soldier was dedicated to that.
Oh please, that statue was dedicated to a lie, let’s quote it.
“war Between the States” is a polite way of avoiding saying the truth, that it was a war of secession designed to protect slavery, also “nobly illustrated Georgia on the field of battle”, what horseshit, they didn’t do anything noble, they fought and died in the service of evil.
The most honest bit about that monument is that it admits it was erected as a memorial to the soldiers deeds, specifically they deeds of fighting to try and ensure that they could continue to own (or hope to one day own) black people as property.
It’s a good thing that it was torn down and the world is a better place because of it.
You want something honest and true? How about “this monument stands to those who fought and died in the American Civil War, May such a war of division never again occur, and so much blood never again be spilled for such an evil cause”.
You can’t have a monument to the dead on the wrong side of a war without acknowledging that they were on the wrong side, not unless you do a mass monument.
Actully that’s a point, where are the mass monuments? Where are the ones dedicated not to confederates but to all who died? The ones with things like “here lie the dead of the battle of XXX, Unionists and Confederates are buried here together, though they fought neighbour against neighbour may they fight broothhood is death” written on them?
Thing is such a monument would require one to have no statue, no proud slaver standing tall, that’s what confederate monuments are largly about, slavery standing tall and powerful, like they were unable to do in life.
Oh and nice attempt at Whataboutism with the Columbus mention, I’m not bitting.
Edited by Silasw on Sep 3rd 2018 at 11:34:59 AM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran@Silasw
I want to be honest the ends justifies the means that comes with a lot of these cases and how people romanticize these vandals is really worrying. It's also not a whatboutism, but how this mentality can be a justification for a no-tolerance stance that can get pretty inane. When you just do a blanket take down of these statues, then it's more of trying to feel self-righteous rather than address wrongs.
The Civil War was caused by slavery, however, I think it's wrong to say all soldiers were the one dimensional evil that sometimes people think of them as. While the Lost Cause is a wrong mentality, I think the fact that people dismiss some of these statues are dedicated to remembering the dead does a great disservice. In fact, one of those monuments was moved to a cemetary because in memory of the soldiers.
http://www.wtoc.com/story/39002759/confederate-monument-destroyed-in-screven-county-cemetery
Also despite the depiction there are many places in the South that honor both Union and Confederate soldiers. It again puts a dent on the depiction that all of them were just putting up white supremacy agenda.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusta_Confederate_Monument
One statue found here called the Augusta Confederate Monument, while does have the men in mention. It was a combination of remembering the dead, while still having crucial generals from the war. And it's one of the earlier monuments.
I want to be honest I don't we should erase how the people viewed the war at that time. We shouldn't pretend that attitude existed. However, at heart, I believe that some of them were about remembering the soldiers.
Edited by firewriter on Sep 3rd 2018 at 7:58:34 AM
It is nearly impossible to persuade a community to acknowledge their own ancestors as evil. Yet we need white southerners to cooperate in American democratic insitutions, in order for our country to run effectively. I'm not endorsing their cause, merely recognizing that some sort of accomodation has to be made with them. This will very likely require a set of statue criteria of acceptance that will remove some of them, allowing others to remain. The process of assessment needs to be seen as fair by all sides. Some sort of local community-based statue committee is about the only group of people who could make such decisions. Hence I strongly feel that the best approach is a group of people who live and work around the statue debating the merits and coming to a consensus. This may result in a patchwork of differnt standards in different places, so therefore is not an ideal approach from a universalistic point of view, but it is the most practical one, that avoids feeding into the national-level polarization we are currently experiencing. We all see what that led to.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.

Getting There Fast
♭What.