Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 331

Thread: Confederate Statues removed in New Orleans

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian in SLC View Post
    I have a theory...based on my relations on my dad's side, who were all from North Carolina.

    Back in the day, even if you were poor, a sharecropper, there was still a class of people you were better than.

    Post civil war, that wasn't true anymore. Then Jim Crow came along.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libert..._(New_Orleans)

    Does anyone really think the Liberty Monument should NOT have been taken down? And, if so, why?
    If you have ever spent much time in Appalachia, this would be hard to argue with.

  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many
     

  3. #22
    I'm sorry, I wasn't paying attention, what were you saying?

  4. #23

  5. #24
    They tore down a Robert E Lee statue in New Orleans last night. I'm sorry, this is asinine. General Lee was opposed to slavery. He called it a "moral evil." He never purchased a single slave and the slaves he inherited from his father-in-law, he freed. Which is more than can be said for the numerous Union generals who owned slaves. General Lee was also opposed to secession. He was offered the job commanding the Northern Army, but he declined because, as a Virginian, he could not bring himself to march an army against his home and his sons. Tell me: would you do differently? Would you take up arms against your family? Is that such a simple choice? Can you really not appreciate the complexity of the situation that General Lee faced?

    General Lee was widely respected on both sides. Read the accounts of his surrender at Appomattox to understand just how highly regarded he was by the men who actually did the fighting. He was one of the greatest Generals this country ever produced, and he was a man of honor and dignity. General Grant recognized that, his soldiers recognized that, Lincoln recognized it, yet we today, in modern times, cast him aside as a racist and a traitor. Disgraceful.

    We can talk about the political causes of the Civil War, but it cannot be disputed that the men who actually fought did so to protect their countries. Southerners considered their states to be their countries first. We may not understand that nowadays, but sometimes a bit of historical perspective is necessary. You know, the same historical perspective we afford to the slave-owning Founders, such as Jefferson. Yet we put these evils aside and build monuments to him. Can we not then put the Civil War in context and allow a great man like Robert E Lee to be remembered and honored, as both his compatriots and his enemies honored him?

    It's ironic to hear these same liberals call the president a Nazi, while destroying history, telling everyone what speech is acceptable and what type of people are acceptable. Please let me know when the book burning is to take place.

    One last note to those conservatives who celebrate the destruction of Confederate monuments. Mark my words: they will come for the slave-owning Founders next. And what will you say then?

  6. Likes DiscGo liked this post
  7. #25
    I was literally just coming here to post the same Matt Walsh comment that @Iceaxe posted.
    "My heart shall cry out for Moab..." Isaiah 15:5

  8. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Iceaxe View Post
    They tore down a Robert E Lee statue in New Orleans last night. I'm sorry, this is asinine. ...Mark my words: they will come for the slave-owning Founders next. And what will you say then?
    Asinine? Agreed. But then, statues and monuments themselves are asinine, so good riddance. Hopefully they won't waste any tax dollars on a smiley-face replacement or such.

    The "mark my words" thing ain't gonna happen, though. No slope slick enough to sled the hallowed daddies.

  9. #27
    History is complicated. But it is still history. Tearing down markers of history because you disagree with them is a milestone on the road to ignorance. Statues, like all art, are a form of expression. As Justice Holmes noted so long ago, the remedy for objectionable expression is to counter it with expression of your own, not to silence it.

    It would also be great if people understood why the monuments are actually being torn down. This has little to do with slavery and is really about Mayor Mitch Landrieu wanting to make a name for himself in national politics.

    I see no difference between this and ISIS destroying Iranian and Syrian art.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...cient-art.html

  10. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Iceaxe View Post
    History is complicated. But it is still history. Tearing down markers of history because you disagree with them is a milestone on the road to ignorance. Statues, like all art, are a form of expression. As Justice Holmes noted so long ago, the remedy for objectionable expression is to counter it with expression of your own, not to silence it.
    The history of New Orleans and this monument are worth considering.

    Note that New Orleans was the port in the US that supported the slave trade. Prior to the civil war, it was a melting pot. Huge community of immigrants. More "free" black folks that anywhere else in the south (and probably even the north?). That era still gives New Orleans its flavor today with a mix of Spanish and French cultures that make this city unique in the U.S.

    What was Lee's connection to New Orleans? Little other than he was a general in the confederacy. So, his statue wasn't about him as a person, but, a symbol of the confederacy (erected and celebrated as such). Davis and Beauregard had much stronger ties but Lee was the person more revered and celebrated.

    The Union took New Orleans early in the war.

    Look at the change in demographics and politics in New Orleans over the years. First mixed race (black) governor in the US in 1872. Then came the "white league". Largest mass lynching in American history. And, the erecting of these statues.

    The ethnicity of the city has changed. 30% black in 1940 to over 60% black now. And, the population of the city has plummeted over the last few decades.

    The Robert E. Lee statue was not a statue to the man. He has little to do with New Orleans. He didn't win a battle there and wasn't from anywhere near there. It was a symbol of something else. And, its not destroyed, its being moved, for better or worse.

    Anyhow...

  11. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian in SLC View Post
    And, its not destroyed, its being moved, for better or worse.
    If you believe the Lee monument will ever see the light of day under the current city administration you are lying to yourself.

    It wasn't long ago that the Taliban was blowing up historical Hindu, Buddhist, and Christian figures because they didn't fit into their way or thinking. The pandering politicians in New Orleans are no different.

    FWIW: Lee's opinion of slavery was identical to Lincoln's: both considered it to be evil, but neither thought fighting a war would be the best way to end it.

    The monument to Lt. Beauregard was also removed. Beauregard was a New Orleans native, who also never owned slaves and actually fought for "civil rights" after the War of Northern Aggression.

  12. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Iceaxe View Post
    The pandering politicians in New Orleans are no different.
    Yep...pandering to their constituents.

    Quote Originally Posted by Iceaxe View Post
    The monument to Lt. Beauregard was also removed. Beauregard was a New Orleans native, who also never owned slaves and actually fought for "civil rights" after the War of Northern Aggression.
    Beauregard grew up on a sugar plantation in slave supported aristocracy. He married into plantations that were also supported by slavery. Twice (first wife died in childbirth).

    He may have never personally owned slaves, but, both his family and both the families he married into did. He had money and went to private schools and West Point on the backs of slaves.

    What's that revisionist history of the South called? The "lost cause"?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_C...he_Confederacy

    Interesting op ed:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/09/m...flag.html?_r=4

    One of the fun things to do as a tourist in New Orleans is to visit the old, antebellum plantations. Wild history.

  13. #31
    Saw an interview with Condoleezza Rice about this the other day. Said it is sad that they are erasing history instead of using it to promote how far they've come.

  14. Likes Iceaxe liked this post
  15. #32
    Hannibal Barca, Napoleon Bonaparte, Robert E. Lee, Erwin Rommel were all great military stratgists, tactitions and leaders that are heavily studied and admired by anyone who understands military history. All of the above were only on the "wrong" side depending on your perspective. The biggest failure each of the above made was eventually ending up on the losing side.

    It would be interesting to see how history regarded Grant, Eisenhower and Patton if they had of ended up on the losing side.

    And I'm still waiting for someone (@Brian is SLC maybe?) to explain to me how this is any different from what the Taliban did to the Hindu, Buddhist, and Christian monuments.


  16. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Iceaxe View Post
    And I'm still waiting for someone (@Brian is SLC maybe?) to explain to me how this is any different from what the Taliban did to the Hindu, Buddhist, and Christian monuments.
    In a word, context:

    On the one hand: 3 of the world's great religions, practiced by billions of people over 1000s of years

    On the other: a relatively minor and recent regional conflict

  17. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Iceaxe View Post
    And I'm still waiting for someone (@Brian is SLC maybe?) to explain to me how this is any different from what the Taliban did to the Hindu, Buddhist, and Christian monuments.
    I do think they are similar...

    The erection of the statues in the first place was similar to the Taliban blowing up monuments. An imposition.

    The removal of the statues was a correction of the white leagues' revisionist history.

    My hope is the statues in New Orleans end up in a museum. But, they weren't destroyed. The Taliban destroyed the monuments.

    And, there wasn't a debate on what the Taliban did versus New Orleans. I think the majority of the world thought what the Taliban did was "bad". If you've travelled to Muslim countries, you'll see that culture has largely preserved previous cultures' history. The only reason we have an inkling of information on the Greeks, for instance. Just look at the touristy stuff in Istanbul. (Interested to hear about a co-workers trip to Eygpt).

    People compare the removal of the statures in New Orleans to the toppling of the statue of Saddam in Baghdad. Removing an ode to oppression.

    Its interesting to ponder, though. You've been to Mexico and seen some of the ancient ruins there? You could say those were built on the backs of the enslaved by the ruling elite too. Egypt with its pyramids. Rome. Athens. I've been to the Roman coliseums where the Christians were fed to the lions. Wild to see that stuff. And, that history wasn't erased.

    Another POV...these statues differ from the monuments destroyed by Isis and the Taliban in that they weren't constructed during a prosperous time in the South's or New Orleans history. They were built following that loss by white supremacists who also passed Jim Crow laws oppressing part of the local population. So, their construction was dubious at best to begin with.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thibodaux_massacre

    Some of that "statue" history in New Orleans is bad ol' history some of which has been "white washed".

    Yeah, the victors write the version of history that become "known". And, having spent a fair amount of time in Louisiana and Arkansas...well...there's plenty of lingering sentiments...

  18. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by hank moon View Post
    In a word, context:

    On the one hand: 3 of the world's great religions, practiced by billions of people over 1000s of years

    On the other: a relatively minor and recent regional conflict
    So rewriting history is OK but it has to be longer then 150 years ago? Or rewriting history is OK if it involves billions and not just millions? Or do both things have to occur to make rewriting history acceptable? You know what I mean, two wrongs make a right perhaps?

    Enquiring minds want to know....

  19. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian in SLC View Post
    My hope is the statues in New Orleans end up in a museum. But, they weren't destroyed. The Taliban destroyed the monuments.
    I believe much of the problem could have been avoided is a proper place for the statues had of been found before the removal, say a historical park or museum. But everyone knows the current mayor has no plan of these statues ever seeing the light of day again.

    I don't agree with the reasons the statues were originally erected, but I also don't believe in attempting to erase the history of why they were erected. Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it.

  20. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Iceaxe View Post
    So rewriting history is OK but it has to be longer then 150 years ago?
    Or, its ok if it supports your POV? When you use the phrase, "the war of Northern aggression" for example? That's code for...something...isn't it?

    What's your tie to the south? Are your people from there? What's that history?

    I know Hank has some time in the south...(as stated above, my dad's folks were from North Carolina and still bitter about "that war".)

    Enquiring minds want to know....
    Yeah, what's your stake in this? You spend time in New Orleans? The South?

    Do you wrap yourself in the Stars and Bars?

  21. #38

  22. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian in SLC View Post
    Or, its ok if it supports your POV? When you use the phrase, "the war of Northern aggression" for example? That's code for...something...isn't it?
    The term "Civil War" is a relatively modern term for what was known at the time as "the war of Northern aggression" or "the war of Southern aggression" or "War of Southern Independence". Those were the terms used at the time of the war. I inserted it to see who really knows their American history.


    Quote Originally Posted by Brian in SLC View Post
    Do you wrap yourself in the Stars and Bars?
    Depends on what you call the Stars and Bars, as most people are clueless.

    What many consider the Stars and Bars or Rebel Battle flag is in reality the Confederate Naval Jack and was seldom seen during the "War of Secession".


    This is the original Stars and Bars





    What many call the rebel flag was really the Confederate Naval Jack.





    This is the Battle Flag of the army of Northern Virginia (notice its square).




    What most call the rebel flag or battle flag is actually a modern reproduction



    So what does this fun with flags have to do with removing statues, I'm just trying to point out the confusion when folks try to rewrite history. I bet less than 5% of the population even knows what they think is the "Rebel Flag" or "Stars and Bars" is actually just a poor modern reproduction.

    As I already stated... "I don't agree with the reasons the statues were originally erected, but I also don't believe in attempting to erase the history of why they were erected. Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it."

  23. #40
    While would tend to agree with Shane on this one about preserving history, I fully admit that if a was the descendant of a slave, I might feel different.

    When you read the history of slavery, it was a terrible ordeal for those enslaved. Even if slaves weren't beaten, children of slaves were sold off in auction and they would never see their children again. I wonder how anyone today would react if that happened to us.

    I don't think this is strictly a conservative vs. liberal issue. I would be willing to bet that if there was a statue of Governor Boggs in Provo, the same thing might happen.

    Everything Shane says about General Robert E Lee is historically true. Unfortunately for Lee however, many will only think of him as the man who fought on the side of slavery.

    I still don't know if destroying or hiding the statues or trying to revise history is the right solution. This wouldn't solve anything. If the statues were left in place (too late now), perhaps the best solution might be a new monument in the vicinity that explains the history of the Civil War and that also points out how far we've come would have been the best solution. Since they have been removed, maybe the statues could be moved to a civil war museum.

    Still, it's pretty sad that those removing the statues have to wear bullet proof vest.
    Utah is a very special and unique place. There is no where else like it on earth. Please take care of it and keep the remaining wild areas in pristine condition. The world will be a better place if you do.

Similar Threads

  1. Confederate Battle Flag
    By Iceaxe in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 07-22-2015, 08:58 PM
  2. Careful! These statues could get you pregnant
    By Mtnman1830 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-07-2009, 03:33 PM
  3. Replies: 62
    Last Post: 08-27-2008, 11:04 PM
  4. statues
    By packfish in forum Jokes
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-05-2007, 10:23 PM

Visitors found this page by searching for:

Outdoor Forum

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •