New Orleans City Council Gives Confederate Monuments The Boot

[MarathonMike]

Let me guess, they are going to replace the Confederate Monuments with Micro Aggression Safe Zones.

 

[Jackson]

Don't paint everyone with the same broad brush. If someone can discuss something I'm all for that. Once they retreat into their 'camp' and all its clichés and insults then they get it back.

I painting with a brush that is defined. Those with insults. I find I sometimes lower myself to the same retort and that doesn't get the discussion back on a verbal tract that would at least be factual.

 

[Missourian]

Not so fast...New Orleans may lack authority to remove Confederate Statues | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Katzndogz]

mob rule

People complaining about this need to make up their mind....."no citizen input" or "mob rule". Which is it?

This is obviously a case of mob rule. The input from the minority was dismissed. It's ok when liberals operate this way.

It doesn't look like mob rule. Its the city council imposing itself on the entire city.

 

[Jackson]

Let me guess, they are going to replace the Confederate Monuments with Micro Aggression Safe Zones.

That is a shame. aPeople have to walk on eggsehells lest they

mob rule

People complaining about this need to make up their mind....."no citizen input" or "mob rule". Which is it?

This is obviously a case of mob rule. The input from the minority was dismissed. It's ok when liberals operate this way.

It doesn't look like mob rule. Its the city council imposing itself on the entire city.

But, do they have the right?

 

[IsaacNewton]

Let me guess, they are going to replace the Confederate Monuments with Micro Aggression Safe Zones.

More likely they'll just be racism free zones.

 

[Liminal]

No doubt metaphors and analogies represent the full extent of your knowledge of history.

Sorry to disappoint you. When speaking and writing you need a massive tool box. Those are a couple of them that the human race has used for millennia.

I guess it's just unfortunate that your actual knowledge of history is so superficial. Otherwise you might be able to put those tools to good use.

You are psychic and can read other people's thoughts!? Wow you should be on TV making millions. Ah but you aren't. Because you don't know what anyone else thinks or knows, you just project YOUR beliefs and biases out onto the rest of the world.

Keep searching Pee Wee, the answers are out there.

This changes everything, now you've convinced me of your indisputable expertise. In fact I'd be surprised if some foundation hadn't already offered funding for you to start your own think tank.

Thank you, we have an immediate opening for someone with your skill set in the janitorial department.

As if further demonstration of your somewhat modest intellectual endowment were actually needed. It must be extremely difficult for you to focus with your knees jerking so hard all the time.

 

[Liminal]

Let me guess, they are going to replace the Confederate Monuments with Micro Aggression Safe Zones.

More likely they'll just be racism free zones.

Only when black lives finally matter.

 

[Katzndogz]

Black lies will never matter and neither will their dead druggies.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Sorry to disappoint you. When speaking and writing you need a massive tool box. Those are a couple of them that the human race has used for millennia.

I guess it's just unfortunate that your actual knowledge of history is so superficial. Otherwise you might be able to put those tools to good use.

You are psychic and can read other people's thoughts!? Wow you should be on TV making millions. Ah but you aren't. Because you don't know what anyone else thinks or knows, you just project YOUR beliefs and biases out onto the rest of the world.

Keep searching Pee Wee, the answers are out there.

This changes everything, now you've convinced me of your indisputable expertise. In fact I'd be surprised if some foundation hadn't already offered funding for you to start your own think tank.

Thank you, we have an immediate opening for someone with your skill set in the janitorial department.

As if further demonstration of your somewhat modest intellectual endowment were actually needed. It must be extremely difficult for you to focus with your knees jerking so hard all the time.

You stalking me dimbledore?

Your whining needs to be reserved for con-media, you get no diggity here.

 

[martybegan]

I agree. He could declare them national landmarks, but I don't know if the mechanism for that is viable.

But it would add another layer to the court fight.

As a Historian the removal of these statues saddens me greatly but if this is what the people of New Orleans want...

Sometimes the will of the people has to be tempered by the rights of others in the minority to not have the mob dictate things like this. Its the entire concept of a constitutional republic.

Now is there a constitutional right to these Statues? of course not, that silly. But the idea that history can be purged by a majority vote is troubling in and of itself.

Where does it end? I'm sure a ton of cities have a Malcolm X Blvd (even if just honorary). He hated white people for a large part of his life, only rejecting that concept before he got assassinated. Why should those street signs remain?

Mostly worthy points here with the exceptions:

(1)-

the idea that history can be purged

... moving or removing statues/monuments does not amount to "purging history". It has no relationship to history. Purging history would be removing something from the historical record. That's not at all what reallocating which persons/events are worthy of an honorific amounts to.

The persons and events still exist in history, and must remain there. To suggest that de-honorizing them somehow alters the record of who they were and what they did amounts to Appeal to Emotion. What has changed is not the historical record, but their perceived value.

Social mores change and evolve. In his time and its immediate epilogue, Jeff Davis was simply more esteemed than he is now, and that was when the honorifics went up. Now that his star has faded, the city, in this case, decides it's no longer reflective of the evolved public perception, and is in fact contrary to it, hence the de-honorizing. Ultimately it's a matter of how the city wants to express itself. It's entirely symbolic, nothing to do with historical record.

And ultimately in practical terms it's a pain in the ass, since these names for the most part serve a mundane purpose having nothing to do with the namesake: "take St. Charles to Lee Circle..." or "it's on Jeff Davis Parkway". I doubt that Jeff Davis Pie will be renamed though, or that anybody will quit making it because of its name (or history).


And (2) --

Malcolm X Blvd (even if just honorary). He hated white people for a large part of his life

I'm not aware of evidence that he "hated white people". The white system, certainly, and its effects -- not the people themselves.

In any case the only Malcolm X Boulevards I could find was one in Brooklyn and as a dual (shared) name for a portion of Lenox Avenue in Manhattan that runs through Harlem.

You may think it isn't about purging history, but for the people who care enough to have these things removed, it sure as hell is. Again, when we made peace with the South, part of the whole concept was forgiveness and return to the US. That was the crux of the fight. We let them have their remembrance, and they played nice (mostly) with being part of the US again.

The campaign to get rid of these statues is not a groundswell, its the agitated longings of a vocal few, combined with the ambivalence of the majority.

42 Quotes from The Autobiography of Malcolm X

And on the topic of Malcolm X
An earlier quote:

“For the white man to ask the black man if he hates him is just like the rapist asking the raped, or the wolf asking the sheep, ‘Do you hate me?’ The white man is in no moral position to accuse anyone else of hate! Why, when all of my ancestors are snake-bitten, and I’m snake-bitten, and I warn my children to avoid snakes, what does that snake sound like accusing me of hate-teaching? ” [245]

And when he found the light.

“In the past, yes, I have made sweeping indictments of all white people. I never will be guilty of that again – as I know now that some white people are truly sincere, that some truly are capable of being brotherly toward a black man. The true Islam has shown me that a blanket indictment of all white people is as wrong as when whites made blanket indictments against blacks.” [369]

Where is the equivalent for the confederates?

They didn't have to change their minds because it was changed for them on the battlefield and in the constitution.

 

[martybegan]

I agree. He could declare them national landmarks, but I don't know if the mechanism for that is viable.

But it would add another layer to the court fight.

As a Historian the removal of these statues saddens me greatly but if this is what the people of New Orleans want...

Sometimes the will of the people has to be tempered by the rights of others in the minority to not have the mob dictate things like this. Its the entire concept of a constitutional republic.

Now is there a constitutional right to these Statues? of course not, that silly. But the idea that history can be purged by a majority vote is troubling in and of itself.

Where does it end? I'm sure a ton of cities have a Malcolm X Blvd (even if just honorary). He hated white people for a large part of his life, only rejecting that concept before he got assassinated. Why should those street signs remain?

Mostly worthy points here with the exceptions:

(1)-

the idea that history can be purged

... moving or removing statues/monuments does not amount to "purging history". It has no relationship to history. Purging history would be removing something from the historical record. That's not at all what reallocating which persons/events are worthy of an honorific amounts to.

The persons and events still exist in history, and must remain there. To suggest that de-honorizing them somehow alters the record of who they were and what they did amounts to Appeal to Emotion. What has changed is not the historical record, but their perceived value.

Social mores change and evolve. In his time and its immediate epilogue, Jeff Davis was simply more esteemed than he is now, and that was when the honorifics went up. Now that his star has faded, the city, in this case, decides it's no longer reflective of the evolved public perception, and is in fact contrary to it, hence the de-honorizing. Ultimately it's a matter of how the city wants to express itself. It's entirely symbolic, nothing to do with historical record.

And ultimately in practical terms it's a pain in the ass, since these names for the most part serve a mundane purpose having nothing to do with the namesake: "take St. Charles to Lee Circle..." or "it's on Jeff Davis Parkway". I doubt that Jeff Davis Pie will be renamed though, or that anybody will quit making it because of its name (or history).


And (2) --

Malcolm X Blvd (even if just honorary). He hated white people for a large part of his life

I'm not aware of evidence that he "hated white people". The white system, certainly, and its effects -- not the people themselves.

In any case the only Malcolm X Boulevards I could find was one in Brooklyn and as a dual (shared) name for a portion of Lenox Avenue in Manhattan that runs through Harlem.

You may think it isn't about purging history, but for the people who care enough to have these things removed, it sure as hell is. Again, when we made peace with the South, part of the whole concept was forgiveness and return to the US. That was the crux of the fight. We let them have their remembrance, and they played nice (mostly) with being part of the US again.

The campaign to get rid of these statues is not a groundswell, its the agitated longings of a vocal few, combined with the ambivalence of the majority.

42 Quotes from The Autobiography of Malcolm X

And on the topic of Malcolm X
An earlier quote:

“For the white man to ask the black man if he hates him is just like the rapist asking the raped, or the wolf asking the sheep, ‘Do you hate me?’ The white man is in no moral position to accuse anyone else of hate! Why, when all of my ancestors are snake-bitten, and I’m snake-bitten, and I warn my children to avoid snakes, what does that snake sound like accusing me of hate-teaching? ” [245]

And when he found the light.

“In the past, yes, I have made sweeping indictments of all white people. I never will be guilty of that again – as I know now that some white people are truly sincere, that some truly are capable of being brotherly toward a black man. The true Islam has shown me that a blanket indictment of all white people is as wrong as when whites made blanket indictments against blacks.” [369]

And exactly HOW (#1) does such an action in any way alter the historical record? How? Do paragraphs about Robert E. Lee or Jeff Davis magically disappear from history books because a city council un-named a monument or moved it?

Statues and monuments are not the historical record; they are a positive emphasis of some person or event. What's happening here is a city that decides that positively emphasizing this person or that event is not what the city should be doing. That's got nothing to do with what actually went down in history. If anything this move by the city spurs at least some people who never gave a thought to what such person or event means, to become more informed. That alone is a positive.

You may think it isn't about purging history, but for the people who care enough to have these things removed, it sure as hell is.

Not at all. It's what city administration actions are always about -- the city's image.


#2 looks like a metaphor to my eyes. I see where he acknowledges "sweeping indictments". I do not see where he articulates "hate", either then or previously. I see where his older statement refers to actions and their consequences; I don't see where they articulated an emotion.

They are a reminder, positivism or negativism is usually in the eye of the beholder. The whole thing just reeks of the "memory hole" a la 1984.

 

[Pogo]

As a Historian the removal of these statues saddens me greatly but if this is what the people of New Orleans want...

Sometimes the will of the people has to be tempered by the rights of others in the minority to not have the mob dictate things like this. Its the entire concept of a constitutional republic.

Now is there a constitutional right to these Statues? of course not, that silly. But the idea that history can be purged by a majority vote is troubling in and of itself.

Where does it end? I'm sure a ton of cities have a Malcolm X Blvd (even if just honorary). He hated white people for a large part of his life, only rejecting that concept before he got assassinated. Why should those street signs remain?

Mostly worthy points here with the exceptions:

(1)-

the idea that history can be purged

... moving or removing statues/monuments does not amount to "purging history". It has no relationship to history. Purging history would be removing something from the historical record. That's not at all what reallocating which persons/events are worthy of an honorific amounts to.

The persons and events still exist in history, and must remain there. To suggest that de-honorizing them somehow alters the record of who they were and what they did amounts to Appeal to Emotion. What has changed is not the historical record, but their perceived value.

Social mores change and evolve. In his time and its immediate epilogue, Jeff Davis was simply more esteemed than he is now, and that was when the honorifics went up. Now that his star has faded, the city, in this case, decides it's no longer reflective of the evolved public perception, and is in fact contrary to it, hence the de-honorizing. Ultimately it's a matter of how the city wants to express itself. It's entirely symbolic, nothing to do with historical record.

And ultimately in practical terms it's a pain in the ass, since these names for the most part serve a mundane purpose having nothing to do with the namesake: "take St. Charles to Lee Circle..." or "it's on Jeff Davis Parkway". I doubt that Jeff Davis Pie will be renamed though, or that anybody will quit making it because of its name (or history).


And (2) --

Malcolm X Blvd (even if just honorary). He hated white people for a large part of his life

I'm not aware of evidence that he "hated white people". The white system, certainly, and its effects -- not the people themselves.

In any case the only Malcolm X Boulevards I could find was one in Brooklyn and as a dual (shared) name for a portion of Lenox Avenue in Manhattan that runs through Harlem.

You may think it isn't about purging history, but for the people who care enough to have these things removed, it sure as hell is. Again, when we made peace with the South, part of the whole concept was forgiveness and return to the US. That was the crux of the fight. We let them have their remembrance, and they played nice (mostly) with being part of the US again.

The campaign to get rid of these statues is not a groundswell, its the agitated longings of a vocal few, combined with the ambivalence of the majority.

42 Quotes from The Autobiography of Malcolm X

And on the topic of Malcolm X
An earlier quote:

“For the white man to ask the black man if he hates him is just like the rapist asking the raped, or the wolf asking the sheep, ‘Do you hate me?’ The white man is in no moral position to accuse anyone else of hate! Why, when all of my ancestors are snake-bitten, and I’m snake-bitten, and I warn my children to avoid snakes, what does that snake sound like accusing me of hate-teaching? ” [245]

And when he found the light.

“In the past, yes, I have made sweeping indictments of all white people. I never will be guilty of that again – as I know now that some white people are truly sincere, that some truly are capable of being brotherly toward a black man. The true Islam has shown me that a blanket indictment of all white people is as wrong as when whites made blanket indictments against blacks.” [369]

And exactly HOW (#1) does such an action in any way alter the historical record? How? Do paragraphs about Robert E. Lee or Jeff Davis magically disappear from history books because a city council un-named a monument or moved it?

Statues and monuments are not the historical record; they are a positive emphasis of some person or event. What's happening here is a city that decides that positively emphasizing this person or that event is not what the city should be doing. That's got nothing to do with what actually went down in history. If anything this move by the city spurs at least some people who never gave a thought to what such person or event means, to become more informed. That alone is a positive.

You may think it isn't about purging history, but for the people who care enough to have these things removed, it sure as hell is.

Not at all. It's what city administration actions are always about -- the city's image.


#2 looks like a metaphor to my eyes. I see where he acknowledges "sweeping indictments". I do not see where he articulates "hate", either then or previously. I see where his older statement refers to actions and their consequences; I don't see where they articulated an emotion.

They are a reminder, positivism or negativism is usually in the eye of the beholder. The whole thing just reeks of the "memory hole" a la 1984.

Apparently you're still confusing historical record with the selective emphasis of it.

The historical record remains untouched. Any highlight of this event, or that person, whether that choice be made in the present or the past, is optional. Neither its presence nor its absence changes the historical record.

Now if someone were proposing to remove the statue of Beauregard, and then deny it was ever standing there in the past, you'd have a case, albeit a mild one.

Here's a plaque was put up on a building at 205 West Madison Street in Pulaski Tennessee by the Daughters of the Confederacy in 1917, the era of the revival of the Klan following the "Birth of a Nation" film:

​

---- Yet today, it looks like this:

​

--- it's turned backward so that while it's still there it can't be read.

This in effect serves two functions: it removes the previous highlight of a historical event, yet it's still on the building, which invites the passerby to inquire, "what's this blank plaque about?" Thus a double statement is made, that (a) if you care to ask, this is where the Klan was formed, and (b) the local community is not proud of that. Over 70 years went by before the latter became too much the prevailing sentiment for the display to continue.

Neither the plaque facing out nor the plaque facing blank alters the history. The history was the history, decades before the plaque even existed, and continued to be the history after it was turned around. The optional highlighting changed; the history did not.

What DOES threaten the historical record, in this case, is the babble of Revisionists trying to sell the myth that "the Klan was founded by the Democratic Party". That's exactly why I keep calling it out. That and the other rewrites like "Hitler was a leftist", "FDR cause the Depression" and so on. THAT is where history is under attack -- not in markers or statues or monuments being removed.

SeniorChief_Polock

 

[martybegan]

Sometimes the will of the people has to be tempered by the rights of others in the minority to not have the mob dictate things like this. Its the entire concept of a constitutional republic.

Now is there a constitutional right to these Statues? of course not, that silly. But the idea that history can be purged by a majority vote is troubling in and of itself.

Where does it end? I'm sure a ton of cities have a Malcolm X Blvd (even if just honorary). He hated white people for a large part of his life, only rejecting that concept before he got assassinated. Why should those street signs remain?

Mostly worthy points here with the exceptions:

(1)-

the idea that history can be purged

... moving or removing statues/monuments does not amount to "purging history". It has no relationship to history. Purging history would be removing something from the historical record. That's not at all what reallocating which persons/events are worthy of an honorific amounts to.

The persons and events still exist in history, and must remain there. To suggest that de-honorizing them somehow alters the record of who they were and what they did amounts to Appeal to Emotion. What has changed is not the historical record, but their perceived value.

Social mores change and evolve. In his time and its immediate epilogue, Jeff Davis was simply more esteemed than he is now, and that was when the honorifics went up. Now that his star has faded, the city, in this case, decides it's no longer reflective of the evolved public perception, and is in fact contrary to it, hence the de-honorizing. Ultimately it's a matter of how the city wants to express itself. It's entirely symbolic, nothing to do with historical record.

And ultimately in practical terms it's a pain in the ass, since these names for the most part serve a mundane purpose having nothing to do with the namesake: "take St. Charles to Lee Circle..." or "it's on Jeff Davis Parkway". I doubt that Jeff Davis Pie will be renamed though, or that anybody will quit making it because of its name (or history).


And (2) --

Malcolm X Blvd (even if just honorary). He hated white people for a large part of his life

I'm not aware of evidence that he "hated white people". The white system, certainly, and its effects -- not the people themselves.

In any case the only Malcolm X Boulevards I could find was one in Brooklyn and as a dual (shared) name for a portion of Lenox Avenue in Manhattan that runs through Harlem.

You may think it isn't about purging history, but for the people who care enough to have these things removed, it sure as hell is. Again, when we made peace with the South, part of the whole concept was forgiveness and return to the US. That was the crux of the fight. We let them have their remembrance, and they played nice (mostly) with being part of the US again.

The campaign to get rid of these statues is not a groundswell, its the agitated longings of a vocal few, combined with the ambivalence of the majority.

42 Quotes from The Autobiography of Malcolm X

And on the topic of Malcolm X
An earlier quote:

“For the white man to ask the black man if he hates him is just like the rapist asking the raped, or the wolf asking the sheep, ‘Do you hate me?’ The white man is in no moral position to accuse anyone else of hate! Why, when all of my ancestors are snake-bitten, and I’m snake-bitten, and I warn my children to avoid snakes, what does that snake sound like accusing me of hate-teaching? ” [245]

And when he found the light.

“In the past, yes, I have made sweeping indictments of all white people. I never will be guilty of that again – as I know now that some white people are truly sincere, that some truly are capable of being brotherly toward a black man. The true Islam has shown me that a blanket indictment of all white people is as wrong as when whites made blanket indictments against blacks.” [369]

And exactly HOW (#1) does such an action in any way alter the historical record? How? Do paragraphs about Robert E. Lee or Jeff Davis magically disappear from history books because a city council un-named a monument or moved it?

Statues and monuments are not the historical record; they are a positive emphasis of some person or event. What's happening here is a city that decides that positively emphasizing this person or that event is not what the city should be doing. That's got nothing to do with what actually went down in history. If anything this move by the city spurs at least some people who never gave a thought to what such person or event means, to become more informed. That alone is a positive.

You may think it isn't about purging history, but for the people who care enough to have these things removed, it sure as hell is.

Not at all. It's what city administration actions are always about -- the city's image.


#2 looks like a metaphor to my eyes. I see where he acknowledges "sweeping indictments". I do not see where he articulates "hate", either then or previously. I see where his older statement refers to actions and their consequences; I don't see where they articulated an emotion.

They are a reminder, positivism or negativism is usually in the eye of the beholder. The whole thing just reeks of the "memory hole" a la 1984.

Apparently you're still confusing historical record with the selective emphasis of it.

The historical record remains untouched. Any highlight of this event, or that person, whether that choice be made in the present or the past, is optional. Neither its presence nor its absence changes the historical record.

Now if someone were proposing to remove the statue of Beauregard, and then deny it was ever standing there in the past, you'd have a case, albeit a mild one.

Here's a plaque was put up on a building at 205 West Madison Street in Pulaski Tennessee by the Daughters of the Confederacy in 1917, the era of the revival of the Klan following the "Birth of a Nation" film:

​

---- Yet today, it looks like this:

​

--- it's turned backward so that while it's still there it can't be read.

This in effect serves two functions: it removes the previous highlight of a historical event, yet it's still on the building, which invites the passerby to inquire, "what's this blank plaque about?" Thus a double statement is made, that (a) if you care to ask, this is where the Klan was formed, and (b) the local community is not proud of that. Over 70 years went by before the latter became too much the prevailing sentiment for the display to continue.

Neither the plaque facing out nor the plaque facing blank alters the history. The history was the history, decades before the plaque even existed, and continued to be the history after it was turned around. The optional highlighting changed; the history did not.

What DOES threaten the historical record, in this case, is the babble of Revisionists trying to sell the myth that "the Klan was founded by the Democratic Party". That's exactly why I keep calling it out. That and the other rewrites like "Hitler was a leftist", "FDR cause the Depression" and so on. THAT is where history is under attack -- not in markers or statues or monuments being removed.

Turning it backwards is still better than removing things entirely. If you want to shroud the statues I would have far less of an issue. Removing something physical is just as bad as removing it from text. I'm sure the people pushing for the statue removal would also LOVE to remove any reference to the people represented, or to change history to make them total evil villains.

 

[Pogo]

Mostly worthy points here with the exceptions:

(1)- ... moving or removing statues/monuments does not amount to "purging history". It has no relationship to history. Purging history would be removing something from the historical record. That's not at all what reallocating which persons/events are worthy of an honorific amounts to.

The persons and events still exist in history, and must remain there. To suggest that de-honorizing them somehow alters the record of who they were and what they did amounts to Appeal to Emotion. What has changed is not the historical record, but their perceived value.

Social mores change and evolve. In his time and its immediate epilogue, Jeff Davis was simply more esteemed than he is now, and that was when the honorifics went up. Now that his star has faded, the city, in this case, decides it's no longer reflective of the evolved public perception, and is in fact contrary to it, hence the de-honorizing. Ultimately it's a matter of how the city wants to express itself. It's entirely symbolic, nothing to do with historical record.

And ultimately in practical terms it's a pain in the ass, since these names for the most part serve a mundane purpose having nothing to do with the namesake: "take St. Charles to Lee Circle..." or "it's on Jeff Davis Parkway". I doubt that Jeff Davis Pie will be renamed though, or that anybody will quit making it because of its name (or history).


And (2) -- I'm not aware of evidence that he "hated white people". The white system, certainly, and its effects -- not the people themselves.

In any case the only Malcolm X Boulevards I could find was one in Brooklyn and as a dual (shared) name for a portion of Lenox Avenue in Manhattan that runs through Harlem.

You may think it isn't about purging history, but for the people who care enough to have these things removed, it sure as hell is. Again, when we made peace with the South, part of the whole concept was forgiveness and return to the US. That was the crux of the fight. We let them have their remembrance, and they played nice (mostly) with being part of the US again.

The campaign to get rid of these statues is not a groundswell, its the agitated longings of a vocal few, combined with the ambivalence of the majority.

42 Quotes from The Autobiography of Malcolm X

And on the topic of Malcolm X
An earlier quote:

“For the white man to ask the black man if he hates him is just like the rapist asking the raped, or the wolf asking the sheep, ‘Do you hate me?’ The white man is in no moral position to accuse anyone else of hate! Why, when all of my ancestors are snake-bitten, and I’m snake-bitten, and I warn my children to avoid snakes, what does that snake sound like accusing me of hate-teaching? ” [245]

And when he found the light.

“In the past, yes, I have made sweeping indictments of all white people. I never will be guilty of that again – as I know now that some white people are truly sincere, that some truly are capable of being brotherly toward a black man. The true Islam has shown me that a blanket indictment of all white people is as wrong as when whites made blanket indictments against blacks.” [369]

And exactly HOW (#1) does such an action in any way alter the historical record? How? Do paragraphs about Robert E. Lee or Jeff Davis magically disappear from history books because a city council un-named a monument or moved it?

Statues and monuments are not the historical record; they are a positive emphasis of some person or event. What's happening here is a city that decides that positively emphasizing this person or that event is not what the city should be doing. That's got nothing to do with what actually went down in history. If anything this move by the city spurs at least some people who never gave a thought to what such person or event means, to become more informed. That alone is a positive.

You may think it isn't about purging history, but for the people who care enough to have these things removed, it sure as hell is.

Not at all. It's what city administration actions are always about -- the city's image.


#2 looks like a metaphor to my eyes. I see where he acknowledges "sweeping indictments". I do not see where he articulates "hate", either then or previously. I see where his older statement refers to actions and their consequences; I don't see where they articulated an emotion.

They are a reminder, positivism or negativism is usually in the eye of the beholder. The whole thing just reeks of the "memory hole" a la 1984.

Apparently you're still confusing historical record with the selective emphasis of it.

The historical record remains untouched. Any highlight of this event, or that person, whether that choice be made in the present or the past, is optional. Neither its presence nor its absence changes the historical record.

Now if someone were proposing to remove the statue of Beauregard, and then deny it was ever standing there in the past, you'd have a case, albeit a mild one.

Here's a plaque was put up on a building at 205 West Madison Street in Pulaski Tennessee by the Daughters of the Confederacy in 1917, the era of the revival of the Klan following the "Birth of a Nation" film:

​

---- Yet today, it looks like this:

​

--- it's turned backward so that while it's still there it can't be read.

This in effect serves two functions: it removes the previous highlight of a historical event, yet it's still on the building, which invites the passerby to inquire, "what's this blank plaque about?" Thus a double statement is made, that (a) if you care to ask, this is where the Klan was formed, and (b) the local community is not proud of that. Over 70 years went by before the latter became too much the prevailing sentiment for the display to continue.

Neither the plaque facing out nor the plaque facing blank alters the history. The history was the history, decades before the plaque even existed, and continued to be the history after it was turned around. The optional highlighting changed; the history did not.

What DOES threaten the historical record, in this case, is the babble of Revisionists trying to sell the myth that "the Klan was founded by the Democratic Party". That's exactly why I keep calling it out. That and the other rewrites like "Hitler was a leftist", "FDR cause the Depression" and so on. THAT is where history is under attack -- not in markers or statues or monuments being removed.

Turning it backwards is still better than removing things entirely. If you want to shroud the statues I would have far less of an issue. Removing something physical is just as bad as removing it from text. I'm sure the people pushing for the statue removal would also LOVE to remove any reference to the people represented, or to change history to make them total evil villains.

Unfortunately the imaginary "I'm sure they would like to....... " doesn't count as a point. We must needs deal with actions in the real world, not that of conjecture.

Monuments serve their purpose in their own time. During the Third Reich the Nazis had symbols all over the place; but then their value changed. The history itself, though, never did. They remain separate things. What the city here is saying is that the time for emphasizing these particular events and people -- has passed. For the same reason you would not have seen this monument in, say, 1957:

Monuments are not history -- they're emphasis. Just as if, say, you were overweight you might want to wear vertical stripes to de-emphasize your overweight -- but it doesn't change what the scale says.

 

[martybegan]

You may think it isn't about purging history, but for the people who care enough to have these things removed, it sure as hell is. Again, when we made peace with the South, part of the whole concept was forgiveness and return to the US. That was the crux of the fight. We let them have their remembrance, and they played nice (mostly) with being part of the US again.

The campaign to get rid of these statues is not a groundswell, its the agitated longings of a vocal few, combined with the ambivalence of the majority.

42 Quotes from The Autobiography of Malcolm X

And on the topic of Malcolm X
An earlier quote:

And when he found the light.

And exactly HOW (#1) does such an action in any way alter the historical record? How? Do paragraphs about Robert E. Lee or Jeff Davis magically disappear from history books because a city council un-named a monument or moved it?

Statues and monuments are not the historical record; they are a positive emphasis of some person or event. What's happening here is a city that decides that positively emphasizing this person or that event is not what the city should be doing. That's got nothing to do with what actually went down in history. If anything this move by the city spurs at least some people who never gave a thought to what such person or event means, to become more informed. That alone is a positive.

You may think it isn't about purging history, but for the people who care enough to have these things removed, it sure as hell is.

Not at all. It's what city administration actions are always about -- the city's image.


#2 looks like a metaphor to my eyes. I see where he acknowledges "sweeping indictments". I do not see where he articulates "hate", either then or previously. I see where his older statement refers to actions and their consequences; I don't see where they articulated an emotion.

They are a reminder, positivism or negativism is usually in the eye of the beholder. The whole thing just reeks of the "memory hole" a la 1984.

Apparently you're still confusing historical record with the selective emphasis of it.

The historical record remains untouched. Any highlight of this event, or that person, whether that choice be made in the present or the past, is optional. Neither its presence nor its absence changes the historical record.

Now if someone were proposing to remove the statue of Beauregard, and then deny it was ever standing there in the past, you'd have a case, albeit a mild one.

Here's a plaque was put up on a building at 205 West Madison Street in Pulaski Tennessee by the Daughters of the Confederacy in 1917, the era of the revival of the Klan following the "Birth of a Nation" film:

​

---- Yet today, it looks like this:

​

--- it's turned backward so that while it's still there it can't be read.

This in effect serves two functions: it removes the previous highlight of a historical event, yet it's still on the building, which invites the passerby to inquire, "what's this blank plaque about?" Thus a double statement is made, that (a) if you care to ask, this is where the Klan was formed, and (b) the local community is not proud of that. Over 70 years went by before the latter became too much the prevailing sentiment for the display to continue.

Neither the plaque facing out nor the plaque facing blank alters the history. The history was the history, decades before the plaque even existed, and continued to be the history after it was turned around. The optional highlighting changed; the history did not.

What DOES threaten the historical record, in this case, is the babble of Revisionists trying to sell the myth that "the Klan was founded by the Democratic Party". That's exactly why I keep calling it out. That and the other rewrites like "Hitler was a leftist", "FDR cause the Depression" and so on. THAT is where history is under attack -- not in markers or statues or monuments being removed.

Turning it backwards is still better than removing things entirely. If you want to shroud the statues I would have far less of an issue. Removing something physical is just as bad as removing it from text. I'm sure the people pushing for the statue removal would also LOVE to remove any reference to the people represented, or to change history to make them total evil villains.

Unfortunately the imaginary "I'm sure they would like to....... " doesn't count as a point. We must needs deal with actions in the real world, not that of conjecture.

Monuments serve their purpose in their own time. During the Third Reich the Nazis had symbols all over the place; but then their value changed. The history itself, though, never did. They remain separate things. What the city here is saying is that the time for emphasizing these particular events and people -- has passed. For the same reason you would not have seen this monument in, say, 1957:

Monuments are not history -- they're emphasis. Just as if, say, you were overweight you might want to wear vertical stripes to de-emphasize your overweight -- but it doesn't change what the scale says.

And removing them serves a transient political purpose, over hurt feelings. Again, drape them in black if you wan to, but removing them for political reasons is just too Orwellian for my tastes.

And the lawsuits are already in.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/20/u...nss-plan-to-remove-confederate-monuments.html

If the Mount Soledad cross lawsuit is any indication of how long these things take to play out, then expect to be arguing over this in the 2030's.

 

[Pogo]

And exactly HOW (#1) does such an action in any way alter the historical record? How? Do paragraphs about Robert E. Lee or Jeff Davis magically disappear from history books because a city council un-named a monument or moved it?

Statues and monuments are not the historical record; they are a positive emphasis of some person or event. What's happening here is a city that decides that positively emphasizing this person or that event is not what the city should be doing. That's got nothing to do with what actually went down in history. If anything this move by the city spurs at least some people who never gave a thought to what such person or event means, to become more informed. That alone is a positive.

Not at all. It's what city administration actions are always about -- the city's image.


#2 looks like a metaphor to my eyes. I see where he acknowledges "sweeping indictments". I do not see where he articulates "hate", either then or previously. I see where his older statement refers to actions and their consequences; I don't see where they articulated an emotion.

They are a reminder, positivism or negativism is usually in the eye of the beholder. The whole thing just reeks of the "memory hole" a la 1984.

Apparently you're still confusing historical record with the selective emphasis of it.

The historical record remains untouched. Any highlight of this event, or that person, whether that choice be made in the present or the past, is optional. Neither its presence nor its absence changes the historical record.

Now if someone were proposing to remove the statue of Beauregard, and then deny it was ever standing there in the past, you'd have a case, albeit a mild one.

Here's a plaque was put up on a building at 205 West Madison Street in Pulaski Tennessee by the Daughters of the Confederacy in 1917, the era of the revival of the Klan following the "Birth of a Nation" film:

​

---- Yet today, it looks like this:

​

--- it's turned backward so that while it's still there it can't be read.

This in effect serves two functions: it removes the previous highlight of a historical event, yet it's still on the building, which invites the passerby to inquire, "what's this blank plaque about?" Thus a double statement is made, that (a) if you care to ask, this is where the Klan was formed, and (b) the local community is not proud of that. Over 70 years went by before the latter became too much the prevailing sentiment for the display to continue.

Neither the plaque facing out nor the plaque facing blank alters the history. The history was the history, decades before the plaque even existed, and continued to be the history after it was turned around. The optional highlighting changed; the history did not.

What DOES threaten the historical record, in this case, is the babble of Revisionists trying to sell the myth that "the Klan was founded by the Democratic Party". That's exactly why I keep calling it out. That and the other rewrites like "Hitler was a leftist", "FDR cause the Depression" and so on. THAT is where history is under attack -- not in markers or statues or monuments being removed.

Turning it backwards is still better than removing things entirely. If you want to shroud the statues I would have far less of an issue. Removing something physical is just as bad as removing it from text. I'm sure the people pushing for the statue removal would also LOVE to remove any reference to the people represented, or to change history to make them total evil villains.

Unfortunately the imaginary "I'm sure they would like to....... " doesn't count as a point. We must needs deal with actions in the real world, not that of conjecture.

Monuments serve their purpose in their own time. During the Third Reich the Nazis had symbols all over the place; but then their value changed. The history itself, though, never did. They remain separate things. What the city here is saying is that the time for emphasizing these particular events and people -- has passed. For the same reason you would not have seen this monument in, say, 1957:

Monuments are not history -- they're emphasis. Just as if, say, you were overweight you might want to wear vertical stripes to de-emphasize your overweight -- but it doesn't change what the scale says.

And removing them serves a transient political purpose, over hurt feelings. Again, drape them in black if you wan to, but removing them for political reasons is just too Orwellian for my tastes.

And the lawsuits are already in.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/20/u...nss-plan-to-remove-confederate-monuments.html

If the Mount Soledad cross lawsuit is any indication of how long these things take to play out, then expect to be arguing over this in the 2030's.

Once again --- how is it "Orwellian"?

I don't think you're hearing this point --- Orwell's book actually rewrote history and in the process denied the previous version of history. NONE of that is happening by moving or removing monuments. History is in no way rewritten.

The actual rewriting, which IS very much Orwellian, is what I alluded to at the end of post 233. It has nothing to do with monuments, which again is selecting which aspects of history to emphasize. That choice, quite naturally, changes with the times. But the history doesn't.

 

[martybegan]

They are a reminder, positivism or negativism is usually in the eye of the beholder. The whole thing just reeks of the "memory hole" a la 1984.

Apparently you're still confusing historical record with the selective emphasis of it.

The historical record remains untouched. Any highlight of this event, or that person, whether that choice be made in the present or the past, is optional. Neither its presence nor its absence changes the historical record.

Now if someone were proposing to remove the statue of Beauregard, and then deny it was ever standing there in the past, you'd have a case, albeit a mild one.

Here's a plaque was put up on a building at 205 West Madison Street in Pulaski Tennessee by the Daughters of the Confederacy in 1917, the era of the revival of the Klan following the "Birth of a Nation" film:

​

---- Yet today, it looks like this:

​

--- it's turned backward so that while it's still there it can't be read.

This in effect serves two functions: it removes the previous highlight of a historical event, yet it's still on the building, which invites the passerby to inquire, "what's this blank plaque about?" Thus a double statement is made, that (a) if you care to ask, this is where the Klan was formed, and (b) the local community is not proud of that. Over 70 years went by before the latter became too much the prevailing sentiment for the display to continue.

Neither the plaque facing out nor the plaque facing blank alters the history. The history was the history, decades before the plaque even existed, and continued to be the history after it was turned around. The optional highlighting changed; the history did not.

What DOES threaten the historical record, in this case, is the babble of Revisionists trying to sell the myth that "the Klan was founded by the Democratic Party". That's exactly why I keep calling it out. That and the other rewrites like "Hitler was a leftist", "FDR cause the Depression" and so on. THAT is where history is under attack -- not in markers or statues or monuments being removed.

Turning it backwards is still better than removing things entirely. If you want to shroud the statues I would have far less of an issue. Removing something physical is just as bad as removing it from text. I'm sure the people pushing for the statue removal would also LOVE to remove any reference to the people represented, or to change history to make them total evil villains.

Unfortunately the imaginary "I'm sure they would like to....... " doesn't count as a point. We must needs deal with actions in the real world, not that of conjecture.

Monuments serve their purpose in their own time. During the Third Reich the Nazis had symbols all over the place; but then their value changed. The history itself, though, never did. They remain separate things. What the city here is saying is that the time for emphasizing these particular events and people -- has passed. For the same reason you would not have seen this monument in, say, 1957:

Monuments are not history -- they're emphasis. Just as if, say, you were overweight you might want to wear vertical stripes to de-emphasize your overweight -- but it doesn't change what the scale says.

And removing them serves a transient political purpose, over hurt feelings. Again, drape them in black if you wan to, but removing them for political reasons is just too Orwellian for my tastes.

And the lawsuits are already in.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/20/u...nss-plan-to-remove-confederate-monuments.html

If the Mount Soledad cross lawsuit is any indication of how long these things take to play out, then expect to be arguing over this in the 2030's.

Once again --- how is it "Orwellian"?

I don't think you're hearing this point --- Orwell's book actually rewrote history and in the process denied the previous version of history. NONE of that is happening by moving or removing monuments. History is in no way rewritten.

The actual rewriting, which IS very much Orwellian, is what I alluded to at the end of post 233. It has nothing to do with monuments, which again is selecting which aspects of history to emphasize. That choice, quite naturally, changes with the times. But the history doesn't.

It's step 1 Pogo. First you get rid of the public displays, then you demonize beyond their actual crimes, then you eliminate them from the record.

 

[Pogo]

Apparently you're still confusing historical record with the selective emphasis of it.

The historical record remains untouched. Any highlight of this event, or that person, whether that choice be made in the present or the past, is optional. Neither its presence nor its absence changes the historical record.

Now if someone were proposing to remove the statue of Beauregard, and then deny it was ever standing there in the past, you'd have a case, albeit a mild one.

Here's a plaque was put up on a building at 205 West Madison Street in Pulaski Tennessee by the Daughters of the Confederacy in 1917, the era of the revival of the Klan following the "Birth of a Nation" film:

​

---- Yet today, it looks like this:

​

--- it's turned backward so that while it's still there it can't be read.

This in effect serves two functions: it removes the previous highlight of a historical event, yet it's still on the building, which invites the passerby to inquire, "what's this blank plaque about?" Thus a double statement is made, that (a) if you care to ask, this is where the Klan was formed, and (b) the local community is not proud of that. Over 70 years went by before the latter became too much the prevailing sentiment for the display to continue.

Neither the plaque facing out nor the plaque facing blank alters the history. The history was the history, decades before the plaque even existed, and continued to be the history after it was turned around. The optional highlighting changed; the history did not.

What DOES threaten the historical record, in this case, is the babble of Revisionists trying to sell the myth that "the Klan was founded by the Democratic Party". That's exactly why I keep calling it out. That and the other rewrites like "Hitler was a leftist", "FDR cause the Depression" and so on. THAT is where history is under attack -- not in markers or statues or monuments being removed.

Turning it backwards is still better than removing things entirely. If you want to shroud the statues I would have far less of an issue. Removing something physical is just as bad as removing it from text. I'm sure the people pushing for the statue removal would also LOVE to remove any reference to the people represented, or to change history to make them total evil villains.

Unfortunately the imaginary "I'm sure they would like to....... " doesn't count as a point. We must needs deal with actions in the real world, not that of conjecture.

Monuments serve their purpose in their own time. During the Third Reich the Nazis had symbols all over the place; but then their value changed. The history itself, though, never did. They remain separate things. What the city here is saying is that the time for emphasizing these particular events and people -- has passed. For the same reason you would not have seen this monument in, say, 1957:

Monuments are not history -- they're emphasis. Just as if, say, you were overweight you might want to wear vertical stripes to de-emphasize your overweight -- but it doesn't change what the scale says.

And removing them serves a transient political purpose, over hurt feelings. Again, drape them in black if you wan to, but removing them for political reasons is just too Orwellian for my tastes.

And the lawsuits are already in.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/20/u...nss-plan-to-remove-confederate-monuments.html

If the Mount Soledad cross lawsuit is any indication of how long these things take to play out, then expect to be arguing over this in the 2030's.

Once again --- how is it "Orwellian"?

I don't think you're hearing this point --- Orwell's book actually rewrote history and in the process denied the previous version of history. NONE of that is happening by moving or removing monuments. History is in no way rewritten.

The actual rewriting, which IS very much Orwellian, is what I alluded to at the end of post 233. It has nothing to do with monuments, which again is selecting which aspects of history to emphasize. That choice, quite naturally, changes with the times. But the history doesn't.

It's step 1 Pogo. First you get rid of the public displays, then you demonize beyond their actual crimes, then you eliminate them from the record.

Nope and Nope. Slippery Slope.

 

[martybegan]

Turning it backwards is still better than removing things entirely. If you want to shroud the statues I would have far less of an issue. Removing something physical is just as bad as removing it from text. I'm sure the people pushing for the statue removal would also LOVE to remove any reference to the people represented, or to change history to make them total evil villains.

Unfortunately the imaginary "I'm sure they would like to....... " doesn't count as a point. We must needs deal with actions in the real world, not that of conjecture.

Monuments serve their purpose in their own time. During the Third Reich the Nazis had symbols all over the place; but then their value changed. The history itself, though, never did. They remain separate things. What the city here is saying is that the time for emphasizing these particular events and people -- has passed. For the same reason you would not have seen this monument in, say, 1957:

Monuments are not history -- they're emphasis. Just as if, say, you were overweight you might want to wear vertical stripes to de-emphasize your overweight -- but it doesn't change what the scale says.

And removing them serves a transient political purpose, over hurt feelings. Again, drape them in black if you wan to, but removing them for political reasons is just too Orwellian for my tastes.

And the lawsuits are already in.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/20/u...nss-plan-to-remove-confederate-monuments.html

If the Mount Soledad cross lawsuit is any indication of how long these things take to play out, then expect to be arguing over this in the 2030's.

Once again --- how is it "Orwellian"?

I don't think you're hearing this point --- Orwell's book actually rewrote history and in the process denied the previous version of history. NONE of that is happening by moving or removing monuments. History is in no way rewritten.

The actual rewriting, which IS very much Orwellian, is what I alluded to at the end of post 233. It has nothing to do with monuments, which again is selecting which aspects of history to emphasize. That choice, quite naturally, changes with the times. But the history doesn't.

It's step 1 Pogo. First you get rid of the public displays, then you demonize beyond their actual crimes, then you eliminate them from the record.

Nope and Nope. Slippery Slope.

Slippery slope is only a fallacy when not backed up by precedence, or validated by an actual outcome.