Statues celebrating slavers and reparations disconnect

[Tommy Tainant]

I agree that any slaves held by Americans prior to 1865 still extant deserve something from the Democrats.

The oppression continued long after slavery was abolished.

 

[Correll]

I agree that any slaves held by Americans prior to 1865 still extant deserve something from the Democrats.

The oppression continued long after slavery was abolished.

But you specified slavery. THe people in question, who's statues were are talking about, had nothing to do with what came later, after they were defeated and/or dead.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I agree that any slaves held by Americans prior to 1865 still extant deserve something from the Democrats.

The oppression continued long after slavery was abolished.

It continues to this day. The Democrats just dress it up differently.

 

[IM2]

I agree that any slaves held by Americans prior to 1865 still extant deserve something from the Democrats.

No, that deflection doesn't cut it. Slavery didn't exactly end in 1865 and there was a system called jim crow after that which afforded you pretty much everything you have now at the expense of blacks. And since whites, regardless of party participated, your sad excuse for a reply has no merit.

 

[IM2]

I agree that any slaves held by Americans prior to 1865 still extant deserve something from the Democrats.

The oppression continued long after slavery was abolished.

It continues to this day. The Democrats just dress it up differently.

Yeah they dress it up as the republican party.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I know that the destruction of confederate statues has caused some anguish amongst many people. The argument is that these statues celebrate history and that it is wrong to forget an important part of the past.

And then, on the other hand, there are well constructed arguments setting out a case for reparations to people whose ancestors were victims of the slave states. This is strongly opposed by a section of the community.

And there seems to be a disconnect between these two issues. One that is causing me some confusion.

The issue I have is this.

Those people who are arch defenders of the statues and want to pay tribute to the slavers.......................................are the same people who are telling black folks to "get over it" and "move on" when reparations are mentioned.

If I was into judging I might be tempted to accuse them of hypocrisy.

How do you square this contradiction?

A few things here:

1.) First and foremost, very few Confederate military leaders owned slaves, including those whose likenesses were erected in town squares all over the South.

2.) In fact, relatively few southerners owned slaves as they were expensive and a luxury of the rich.

3.) While on the surface the Civil War was fought to keep the right to bring slavery to the Western Territories, at its core, it was fought for states' rights. Southerners being who they were (and still are) they would have started a war over any attempt by Washington to infringe on what they considered to be a state's rights. Slavery just happened to be the spark.

4.) Most of the poor white boys slogging through and venting their guts in the mud in the war did not own slaves and didn't give a rat's ass about the issue. Like most of their military leaders, they were fighting for states' rights out of Southern pride.

5.) The people advocating for keeping the statues are fully aware that the war was, in part, over slavery. But no one wants a return of slavery or Jim Crow laws or segregated schools and restrooms.
The South produced some of the finest military leaders in our nation's history and they are proud of this. This is why they want to keep the statues.

Speaking for myself, I'm a Yankee from upstate New York but I've lived most of my life in the South (except for a brief sojourn in Panama in the early eighties). What bothers me about the Confederate statue issue is not so much they're being taken down but, wondering where it will end.

I'm a student of human behavior and psychology and I know that, given history and past behaviors, it won't end there. And it hasn't. The obsession with racism in this country borders on religious hysteria and people are being labeled racist for the most ridiculous reasons imaginable.

As for reparations, I am unrepentantly and staunchly against it. Why? Because I had nothing to do with slavery or Jim Crow. I am not racist nor have I ever committed an act of racism or discrimination. Most folks advocating to keep the statues feel the same way.

 

[blastoff]

Commie Tommy please give us an update on the Brit reparations program making things better for today’s descendants of your former slaves. Thanks.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I know that the destruction of confederate statues has caused some anguish amongst many people. The argument is that these statues celebrate history and that it is wrong to forget an important part of the past.

And then, on the other hand, there are well constructed arguments setting out a case for reparations to people whose ancestors were victims of the slave states. This is strongly opposed by a section of the community.

And there seems to be a disconnect between these two issues. One that is causing me some confusion.

The issue I have is this.

Those people who are arch defenders of the statues and want to pay tribute to the slavers.......................................are the same people who are telling black folks to "get over it" and "move on" when reparations are mentioned.

If I was into judging I might be tempted to accuse them of hypocrisy.

How do you square this contradiction?

Lord Nelson acted openly against William Wilberforce’s Christian efforts to end slavery in England. Tear down his statue.

Sir Francis Drake owned slaves. Tear down his statue.

 

[Pogo]

I know that the destruction of confederate statues has caused some anguish amongst many people. The argument is that these statues celebrate history and that it is wrong to forget an important part of the past.

And then, on the other hand, there are well constructed arguments setting out a case for reparations to people whose ancestors were victims of the slave states. This is strongly opposed by a section of the community.

And there seems to be a disconnect between these two issues. One that is causing me some confusion.

The issue I have is this.

Those people who are arch defenders of the statues and want to pay tribute to the slavers.......................................are the same people who are telling black folks to "get over it" and "move on" when reparations are mentioned.

If I was into judging I might be tempted to accuse them of hypocrisy.

How do you square this contradiction?

Lord Nelson acted openly against William Wilberforce’s Christian efforts to end slavery in England. Tear down his statue.

Sir Francis Drake owned slaves. Tear down his statue.

Did Lord Nelson or Sir Francis Drake openly participate in a grand history-revision propaganda mission to sanitize the history of slavery?

OK then, red herring thrown back.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I know that the destruction of confederate statues has caused some anguish amongst many people. The argument is that these statues celebrate history and that it is wrong to forget an important part of the past.

And then, on the other hand, there are well constructed arguments setting out a case for reparations to people whose ancestors were victims of the slave states. This is strongly opposed by a section of the community.

And there seems to be a disconnect between these two issues. One that is causing me some confusion.

The issue I have is this.

Those people who are arch defenders of the statues and want to pay tribute to the slavers.......................................are the same people who are telling black folks to "get over it" and "move on" when reparations are mentioned.

If I was into judging I might be tempted to accuse them of hypocrisy.

How do you square this contradiction?

Lord Nelson acted openly against William Wilberforce’s Christian efforts to end slavery in England. Tear down his statue.

Sir Francis Drake owned slaves. Tear down his statue.

Did Lord Nelson or Sir Francis Drake openly participate in a grand history-revision propaganda mission to sanitize the history of slavery?

OK then, red herring thrown back.

Please, stop bitching about Democrats.

 

[22lcidw]

I know that the destruction of confederate statues has caused some anguish amongst many people. The argument is that these statues celebrate history and that it is wrong to forget an important part of the past.

And then, on the other hand, there are well constructed arguments setting out a case for reparations to people whose ancestors were victims of the slave states. This is strongly opposed by a section of the community.

And there seems to be a disconnect between these two issues. One that is causing me some confusion.

The issue I have is this.

Those people who are arch defenders of the statues and want to pay tribute to the slavers.......................................are the same people who are telling black folks to "get over it" and "move on" when reparations are mentioned.

If I was into judging I might be tempted to accuse them of hypocrisy.

How do you square this contradiction?

Because as this was going on Michelle spouted "All this for a flag"....The American flag being burned, destroyed, etc. even with the confederate items you said including that flag being done the same. May I suggest that all the Progs get together and put most of their wealth into reparations. The money from the entertainers in Hollywood alone would come to hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars. Imagine that. Those men and women are the biggest frauds going. And anyone who listens to them in these times are closer to death then to life.

 

[Pogo]

I know that the destruction of confederate statues has caused some anguish amongst many people. The argument is that these statues celebrate history and that it is wrong to forget an important part of the past.

And then, on the other hand, there are well constructed arguments setting out a case for reparations to people whose ancestors were victims of the slave states. This is strongly opposed by a section of the community.

And there seems to be a disconnect between these two issues. One that is causing me some confusion.

The issue I have is this.

Those people who are arch defenders of the statues and want to pay tribute to the slavers.......................................are the same people who are telling black folks to "get over it" and "move on" when reparations are mentioned.

If I was into judging I might be tempted to accuse them of hypocrisy.

How do you square this contradiction?

A few things here:

1.) First and foremost, very few Confederate military leaders owned slaves, including those whose likenesses were erected in town squares all over the South.

2.) In fact, relatively few southerners owned slaves as they were expensive and a luxury of the rich.

3.) While on the surface the Civil War was fought to keep the right to bring slavery to the Western Territories, at its core, it was fought for states' rights. Southerners being who they were (and still are) they would have started a war over any attempt by Washington to infringe on what they considered to be a state's rights. Slavery just happened to be the spark.

4.) Most of the poor white boys slogging through and venting their guts in the mud in the war did not own slaves and didn't give a rat's ass about the issue. Like most of their military leaders, they were fighting for states' rights out of Southern pride.

5.) The people advocating for keeping the statues are fully aware that the war was, in part, over slavery. But no one wants a return of slavery or Jim Crow laws or segregated schools and restrooms.
The South produced some of the finest military leaders in our nation's history and they are proud of this. This is why they want to keep the statues.

Speaking for myself, I'm a Yankee from upstate New York but I've lived most of my life in the South (except for a brief sojourn in Panama in the early eighties). What bothers me about the Confederate statue issue is not so much they're being taken down but, wondering where it will end.

I'm a student of human behavior and psychology and I know that, given history and past behaviors, it won't end there. And it hasn't. The obsession with racism in this country borders on religious hysteria and people are being labeled racist for the most ridiculous reasons imaginable.

As for reparations, I am unrepentantly and staunchly against it. Why? Because I had nothing to do with slavery or Jim Crow. I am not racist nor have I ever committed an act of racism or discrimination. Most folks advocating to keep the statues feel the same way.

A few more things, and/or corrections on first things:

1) Highly debatable, but not at all the point anyway. While I've never done an exhaustive survey to determine how many is "very few", show your research if you have. But again "who owned slaves" was never the point. The point is the Cult of the Lost Cause and its massive propaganda campaign that erected these statues expressly FOR that purpose --- not for the benefit of the subjects whose images were depicted but to push a massive history revision about what the war WAS.

2) Very true. Neither slavery nor enthusiasm for secession was anywhere near ubiquitous in the South. The northwestern counties of Virginia seceded from the state; the eastern counties of Tennessee would have done the same but for Confederate troop occupation, hotbeds of resistance to the Confederacy sprang up all over the South from Searcy County Arkansas to the Texas Hill Country to the Free State of Jones in Mississippi to Winston County Alabama to the hills of northeast Georgia, and desertion was rampant, as was bushwhacking by "Home Guards" who would attack ANY army that encroached on their community. The Civil War was yet another instance of the very rich (the indolent planter class) stirring up the have-nots to do their dirty work for them, just as their slaves had been doing, in order that they could sustain their indolent luxury. That class was despised by those have-nots. Which brings us to

3) Here we have the waste product of that historical revision, a primary purpose of which was to sell this latter-day mythology that the War was fought over a principle of "states rights" rather than the actual practice of Slavery, which ALL the seceding states spelled out in their own articles of secession. No, Slavery didn't "just happen to be the spark" -- it was CENTRAL. The slaveholding states had, since the inception of the nation, held disproportionate political power born out of the infamous "Three-Fifths Compromise" which had given any slaveholding state power beyond its populace as well as extra votes in the Electoral College. Ever wonder why four of the first five Presidents and nine of the first ten administrations came not only from the South but specifically from Virginia? Well there it is. By the middle of the nineteenth century these states grew more and more worried that with western expansion they would LOSE that extra power. THAT is why the Civil War was generated by those wealthy indolent planters --- POWER, not principle.

Sadly this is the mythology that the Cult of the Lost Cause specifically and directly tried to generate, and for a time succeeded, even if it took literally rewriting the history books.

(see video link in post 18, and this one goes deeper)\

​

4) has been addressed in (2) and the video above.

5) Again, what's central here is not why those who want to keep them want to keep them, but why those who put them up there, did so and put them where they did, and what their function was and still is --- propaganda transmitters. The technology of the time for reaching the masses in the days before electronic media. And a final correction here --- yes they were erected in town squares, public buildings, courthouses and the like, wherever would lend them both foot traffic and gravitas, but they were in no way limited to "the South". That again is the mark of a propaganda campaign focused on selling an image of the Confederacy everywhere, not just to itself.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I know that the destruction of confederate statues has caused some anguish amongst many people. The argument is that these statues celebrate history and that it is wrong to forget an important part of the past.

And then, on the other hand, there are well constructed arguments setting out a case for reparations to people whose ancestors were victims of the slave states. This is strongly opposed by a section of the community.

And there seems to be a disconnect between these two issues. One that is causing me some confusion.

The issue I have is this.

Those people who are arch defenders of the statues and want to pay tribute to the slavers.......................................are the same people who are telling black folks to "get over it" and "move on" when reparations are mentioned.

If I was into judging I might be tempted to accuse them of hypocrisy.

How do you square this contradiction?

A few things here:

1.) First and foremost, very few Confederate military leaders owned slaves, including those whose likenesses were erected in town squares all over the South.

2.) In fact, relatively few southerners owned slaves as they were expensive and a luxury of the rich.

3.) While on the surface the Civil War was fought to keep the right to bring slavery to the Western Territories, at its core, it was fought for states' rights. Southerners being who they were (and still are) they would have started a war over any attempt by Washington to infringe on what they considered to be a state's rights. Slavery just happened to be the spark.

4.) Most of the poor white boys slogging through and venting their guts in the mud in the war did not own slaves and didn't give a rat's ass about the issue. Like most of their military leaders, they were fighting for states' rights out of Southern pride.

5.) The people advocating for keeping the statues are fully aware that the war was, in part, over slavery. But no one wants a return of slavery or Jim Crow laws or segregated schools and restrooms.
The South produced some of the finest military leaders in our nation's history and they are proud of this. This is why they want to keep the statues.

Speaking for myself, I'm a Yankee from upstate New York but I've lived most of my life in the South (except for a brief sojourn in Panama in the early eighties). What bothers me about the Confederate statue issue is not so much they're being taken down but, wondering where it will end.

I'm a student of human behavior and psychology and I know that, given history and past behaviors, it won't end there. And it hasn't. The obsession with racism in this country borders on religious hysteria and people are being labeled racist for the most ridiculous reasons imaginable.

As for reparations, I am unrepentantly and staunchly against it. Why? Because I had nothing to do with slavery or Jim Crow. I am not racist nor have I ever committed an act of racism or discrimination. Most folks advocating to keep the statues feel the same way.

A few more things, and/or corrections on first things:

1) Highly debatable, but not at all the point anyway. While I've never done an exhaustive survey to determine how many is "very few", show your research if you have.

I've read Shelby Foote's entire Civil War series twice and the only Confederate military leader I remember being mentioned as owning slaves was Lee and that was only because he married into it.

But again "who owned slaves" was never the point.

It was Tommy's point, apparently, and he is the OP after all. He said: "Those people who are arch defenders of the statues and want to pay tribute to the slavers........"

The point is the Cult of the Lost Cause and its massive propaganda campaign that erected these statues expressly FOR that purpose --- not for the benefit of the subjects whose images were depicted but to push a massive history revision about what the war WAS.

It doesn't matter what the motive was behind the propaganda campaign because most of those who oppose taking down the statues sincerely admire these figures as accomplished military leaders, not because they owned slaves.

Also, whatever motive the people in power had, for most Southerners in favor of the war, it was about states' rights. In fact, Lee considered himself, first and foremost and above all else, a Virginian, and it was the only reason he chose to fight for the Confederacy.

3) Here we have the waste product of that historical revision, a primary purpose of which was to sell this latter-day mythology that the War was fought over a principle of "states rights" rather than the actual practice of Slavery, which ALL the seceding states spelled out in their own articles of secession. No, Slavery didn't "just happen to be the spark" -- it was CENTRAL. The slaveholding states had, since the inception of the nation, held disproportionate political power born out of the infamous "Three-Fifths Compromise" which had given any slaveholding state power beyond its populace as well as extra votes in the Electoral College. Ever wonder why four of the first five Presidents and nine of the first ten administrations came not only from the South but specifically from Virginia? Well there it is. By the middle of the nineteenth century these states grew more and more worried that with western expansion they would LOSE that extra power. THAT is why the Civil War was generated by those wealthy indolent planters --- POWER, not principle.

Right. By maintaining states' rights as they saw them, they would retain the power.

5) Again, what's central here is not why those who want to keep them want to keep them, but why those who put them up there, did so and put them where they did, and what their function was and still is --- propaganda transmitters. The technology of the time for reaching the masses in the days before electronic media. And a final correction here --- yes they were erected in town squares, public buildings, courthouses and the like, wherever would lend them both foot traffic and gravitas, but they were in no way limited to "the South". That again is the mark of a propaganda campaign focused on selling an image of the Confederacy everywhere, not just to itself.

The motive behind the propaganda being central is only relevant here as a matter of history. As I said, those who oppose tearing them down today have their own reasons for feeling as they do. If you asked a million of them why they oppose tearing down the statues you'll likely get a million different answers. But at the core is their admiration for these historical figures but more importantly, they view it as an attempt to erase history.

On the one hand you have the so called "Cult of the Lost Cause" rewriting history and on the other hand you have people today trying to pretend the history didn't happen. Or rather, trying to make everybody forget about it.

 

[Pogo]

I've read Shelby Foote's entire Civil War series twice and the only Confederate military leader I remember being mentioned as owning slaves was Lee and that was only because he married into it.

But again "who owned slaves" was never the point.

It was Tommy's point, apparently, and he is the OP after all. He said: "Those people who are arch defenders of the statues and want to pay tribute to the slavers........"

I don't think you're reading the OP's point correctly then. It looks like you're addressing what you'd like it to be. What the OP does is juxtapose statue-preservers (for lack of a better term) with reparations-deniers (ditto) and question the hypocrisy of taking those two stances simultaneously. He did not go into why said statues are being moved at all. I did.

As far as marrying into slaves you might be thinking of Grant (?) but it doesn't matter, it's not the point.

The point is the Cult of the Lost Cause and its massive propaganda campaign that erected these statues expressly FOR that purpose --- not for the benefit of the subjects whose images were depicted but to push a massive history revision about what the war WAS.

It doesn't matter what the motive was behind the propaganda campaign because most of those who oppose taking down the statues sincerely admire these figures as accomplished military leaders, not because they owned slaves.

It not only matters, it's CRUCIAL. Without those motives, these monuments do not exist. And again, WHY the statue-preservers want to preserve them ISN'T RELEVANT to how they got there and what their function is.

The phrase "because they owned slaves" is a strawman. It was never the point, it isn't the point now, and it's not going to be the point in the future. Washington and Jefferson owned slaves, nobody's taking them down.

Also, whatever motive the people in power had, for most Southerners in favor of the war, it was about states' rights. In fact, Lee considered himself, first and foremost and above all else, a Virginian, and it was the only reason he chose to fight for the Confederacy.

Now you're extrapolating one person into "most Southerners". How do you know what "most Southerners" felt? Did you survey them? Anyway the point still stands that every seceding state SPECIFIED Slavery as their root cause in their articles of secession. That's recorded. It's not going away. Shall we sit here and call them liars about their own motivations and declare that we know better simply because we've been fed revisionist propaganda? Did you watch my videos at all?

The motive behind the propaganda being central is only relevant here as a matter of history. As I said, those who oppose tearing them down today have their own reasons for feeling as they do. If you asked a million of them why they oppose tearing down the statues you'll likely get a million different answers.

Again --- speculation. And why would you get a "million different answers" for something some body of people obviously already agrees on?

But at the core is their admiration for these historical figures but more importantly, they view it as an attempt to erase history.

We've heard that argument, and it's absurd, as we do not record history in monuments. We glorify events and people with them. The actual history is where it's always been since the beginning of time ---- in the history books. Therefore they cannot be taking their stance on the basis of "preserving history". They can however be taking it on the basis of preserving glorification.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I've read Shelby Foote's entire Civil War series twice and the only Confederate military leader I remember being mentioned as owning slaves was Lee and that was only because he married into it.

But again "who owned slaves" was never the point.

It was Tommy's point, apparently, and he is the OP after all. He said: "Those people who are arch defenders of the statues and want to pay tribute to the slavers........"

I don't think you're reading the OP's point correctly then. It looks like you're addressing what you'd like it to be. What the OP does is juxtapose statue-preservers (for lack of a better term) with reparations-deniers (ditto) and question the hypocrisy of taking those two stances simultaneously. He did not go into why said statues are being moved at all. I did.

I understood the OP just fine. But the way it was worded, he thinks the people depicted in the statues were all slavers. We both know that not all of them were. And by pointing out that Confederate statue supporters admire these figures for their military and political accomplishments, I was pointing out that it's not as simple as saying they are "paying tribute to slavers". So it's a false paradigm and not necessarily hypocrisy.

As far as marrying into slaves you might be thinking of Grant (?) but it doesn't matter, it's not the point.

That's true, my mistake. However, I may be confusing the two. After doing a little quick research, it turns out that Lee also, in a sense, married into it. He inherited his father-in-law's slaves when his father-in-law died and the will stipulated that they were to be freed in five years. Although this was after he inherited his mother's slaves upon her death.

The point is the Cult of the Lost Cause and its massive propaganda campaign that erected these statues expressly FOR that purpose --- not for the benefit of the subjects whose images were depicted but to push a massive history revision about what the war WAS.

It doesn't matter what the motive was behind the propaganda campaign because most of those who oppose taking down the statues sincerely admire these figures as accomplished military leaders, not because they owned slaves.

It not only matters, it's CRUCIAL. Without those motives, these monuments do not exist. And again, WHY the statue-preservers want to preserve them ISN'T RELEVANT to how they got there and what their function is.

No, it isn't. But it IS relevant to the premise of the OP which I was responding to. It's Tommy's thread and Tommy's question and it had nothing to do with why the statues were erected. His premise is the hypocrisy of people today "paying tribute to slavers" while denying reparations. My response merely pointed out that not all the figures represented in these statues and memorials were slavers and is not why statue supporters memorialize them in any case. Hence, claiming hypocrisy may be oversimplifying the issue.

The phrase "because they owned slaves" is a strawman. It was never the point, it isn't the point now, and it's not going to be the point in the future. Washington and Jefferson owned slaves, nobody's taking them down.

Yes, it was the point. It was the point of the OP. Tommy is the one who said "paying tribute to slavers", not me. So if "because they owned slaves" is a strawman, so is "paying tribute to slavers".

Seems to me that Tommy is the one you need to be telling this to.

Also, whatever motive the people in power had, for most Southerners in favor of the war, it was about states' rights. In fact, Lee considered himself, first and foremost and above all else, a Virginian, and it was the only reason he chose to fight for the Confederacy.

Now you're extrapolating one person into "most Southerners". How do you know what "most Southerners" felt? Did you survey them? Anyway the point still stands that every seceding state SPECIFIED Slavery as their root cause in their articles of secession. That's recorded. It's not going away. Shall we sit here and call them liars about their own motivations and declare that we know better simply because we've been fed revisionist propaganda?

We're talking about two different things here. I'm talking about Southerners and you're talking about Southern governments, legislatures, politicians and people in power. The average poor Johnny Reb who didn't own slaves and slogged through the mud was fighting to expel what he saw as an invading army from a dictatorial government coming to infringe their rights. For a lot of them, slavery was secondary to that or not an issue at all.

Did you watch my videos at all?

No, I did not. But make no mistake, I didn't not watch them because I'm avoiding the truth. I've no doubt whatsoever that it was all true. I just didn't think it was relevant to the premise of the OP or to my response to it.

You're giving me history lessons on aspects of the erecting of the statues that are not relevant to the premise of the OP. As far as that goes, it's a simple premise that appropriately calls for a pertinent question: Is it true that those who support keeping the statues while denying reparations are hypocrites? I don't think this is necessarily so.

The motive behind the propaganda being central is only relevant here as a matter of history. As I said, those who oppose tearing them down today have their own reasons for feeling as they do. If you asked a million of them why they oppose tearing down the statues you'll likely get a million different answers.

Again --- speculation. And why would you get a "million different answers" for something some body of people obviously already agrees on?

It's just an expression for Christ's sake. And you know as well as I do that if you ask a group of people that agree on a core belief why they feel as they do, you'll get different answers. The existence of God, for example. C'mon man.

But at the core is their admiration for these historical figures but more importantly, they view it as an attempt to erase history.

We've heard that argument, and it's absurd, as we do not record history in monuments. We glorify events and people with them. The actual history is where it's always been since the beginning of time ---- in the history books. Therefore they cannot be taking their stance on the basis of "preserving history". They can however be taking it on the basis of preserving glorification.

You don't have to convince me, I'm not the one saying it.

 

[Pogo]

I've read Shelby Foote's entire Civil War series twice and the only Confederate military leader I remember being mentioned as owning slaves was Lee and that was only because he married into it.

But again "who owned slaves" was never the point.

It was Tommy's point, apparently, and he is the OP after all. He said: "Those people who are arch defenders of the statues and want to pay tribute to the slavers........"

I don't think you're reading the OP's point correctly then. It looks like you're addressing what you'd like it to be. What the OP does is juxtapose statue-preservers (for lack of a better term) with reparations-deniers (ditto) and question the hypocrisy of taking those two stances simultaneously. He did not go into why said statues are being moved at all. I did.

I understood the OP just fine. But the way it was worded, he thinks the people depicted in the statues were all slavers. We both know that not all of them were. And by pointing out that Confederate statue supporters admire these figures for their military and political accomplishments, I was pointing out that it's not as simple as saying they are "paying tribute to slavers". So it's a false paradigm and not necessarily hypocrisy.

What appears to be your hangup here is that you're taking a phrase from the OP far too literally and exclusively. When someone describes a statue as "paying tribute to slavers" that in NO WAY limits the description of the subject to figures who personally individually owned slaves. "Slavers" in this context can and does mean the Confederacy itself, which by its own declarations existed for the express purpose of maintaining Slavery. Thus ANY statue glorifying the Confederacy is by definition "paying tribute to slavers".

As far as marrying into slaves you might be thinking of Grant (?) but it doesn't matter, it's not the point.

That's true, my mistake. However, I may be confusing the two. After doing a little quick research, it turns out that Lee also, in a sense, married into it. He inherited his father-in-law's slaves when his father-in-law died and the will stipulated that they were to be freed in five years. Although this was after he inherited his mother's slaves upon her death.

The point is moot, as described above. It makes no difference whether Lee specifically or Beauregard specifically, or Silent Sam (who isn't even a real person) or whoever the subject is, "owned slaves"; what matters in this question is that they all fought for the cause of it. But as long as we've brought up Robert E. Lee, it's also pertinent to point out that Lee specifically thought such statues to be a BAD idea, and the reasons he thought so are being borne out by exactly the conflict we're talking about. He was right. As I've often said, statues of Lee ought to be affixed with a placard reading "Lee specifically told us not to do this but fuck him, we're gonna get some propaganda mileage out of this regardless what he thinks". This of course ushers in the question of what "paying tribute" actually means --- paying tribute or scoring propaganda points on the backs of corpses who aren't here to object?

And that brings us straight back to the definition of what these monuments ARE, which is absolutely required before we proceed to judge them.

The point is the Cult of the Lost Cause and its massive propaganda campaign that erected these statues expressly FOR that purpose --- not for the benefit of the subjects whose images were depicted but to push a massive history revision about what the war WAS.

It doesn't matter what the motive was behind the propaganda campaign because most of those who oppose taking down the statues sincerely admire these figures as accomplished military leaders, not because they owned slaves.

AGAIN this is speculation. Show your basis. I've heard people claim it's "erasing history" which we've already covered. I have yet to hear "accomplished military leaders" as a reasoning. But even if true it's still IRRELEVANT to the motivations of those who erected them --- the UDC and the Lost Cause Cult --- which defines what they ARE.

This is the part you keep trying to change to "because they owned slaves". NO. Not "because they owned slaves", but because it's part of a massive propaganda historical revision campaign foisted on public property, specifically foisted there for maximum propaganda value. That's why the entities that have been taking such monuments down are CITIES. It's public property. And as such those cities choose not to be a part of a massive propaganda campaign ----------------------------- which is absolutely their right.

AGAIN -- it absolutely matters what the motive was, for that defines what these monuments ARE. And AGAIN, "because they owned slaves" is **STILL** a strawman and not legitimate as argument. AGAIN --- Washington, Jefferson, Madison, any number of POTUSes and Founding Fathers can also be defined as having owned slaves (including Grant). What they cannot be defined as is having fought to PRESERVE it. So this "because they owned slaves" canard hasn't changed since yesterday --- it remains irrelevant. It's a dishonest argument.

While you're looking for justification for your theory above, find me anybody who's in the camp of preserving statues --- for any reason at all --- who is black.

And think about what that means. These monuments went up in a furious rush at the same time Jim Crow was being laid down, at the same time lynchings were rampant, at the same time enormous race riots like Tulsa (1921) and the "Red Summer" (1919) took place; at the same time the Ku Klux Klan re-founded and spread nationwide; at the same time Major League Baseball incited its "gentlemen's agreement" that kept blacks out of baseball for six decades between Moses Walker and Jackie Robinson; at the same time water fountains, restaurants, hotels and public events were being segregated, at the same time the movie "Birth of a Nation" swept the country and Al Jolson was entertaining white audiences in blackface. ALL of that is related.

It not only matters, it's CRUCIAL. Without those motives, these monuments do not exist. And again, WHY the statue-preservers want to preserve them ISN'T RELEVANT to how they got there and what their function is.

No, it isn't. But it IS relevant to the premise of the OP which I was responding to. It's Tommy's thread and Tommy's question and it had nothing to do with why the statues were erected. His premise is the hypocrisy of people today "paying tribute to slavers" while denying reparations. My response merely pointed out that not all the figures represented in these statues and memorials were slavers and is not why statue supporters memorialize them in any case. Hence, claiming hypocrisy may be oversimplifying the issue.

And in doing so you're still using the "because they owned slaves" as a point of departure, and that as already noted is not honest. See, I'm not addressing the OP's question of hypocrisy vis à vis "statues vs reparations". I'm defining what these statues ACTUALLY ARE as a first step. You cannot proceed in a discussion without defining what it is we're talking about. Now that we've established that, we must conclude that those who would preserve such monuments where they are (a) think it's perfectly OK to distort history with disingenuous propaganda, and (b) think that municipalities may have no say in their own property being used as talking sticks to do it.

​

We're talking about two different things here. I'm talking about Southerners and you're talking about Southern governments, legislatures, politicians and people in power. The average poor Johnny Reb who didn't own slaves and slogged through the mud was fighting to expel what he saw as an invading army from a dictatorial government coming to infringe their rights. For a lot of them, slavery was secondary to that or not an issue at all.

Some may have, if they bought the propaganda of those people in power. A lot of them were there because they were DRAFTED, which sat not at all well (speaking of hypocrisy) with common folks who just heard these PTB railing about the Big Gummint in the North, only to strike exactly the same pose in drafting teenagers for their war, states rights be damned. Nor were they amused by the fact that residents who either owned twenty slaves, or could pay for a substitute, could be exempted, which merely underscored what they already knew, that this was a rich man's war with the Haves sending the Have Nots to do their dirty work for them. A lot of them either deserted or dodged that draft, and some of the latter became "Home Guards" who would simply attack ANY army infringing on their community. So the sentiment was anything but universal. I've already mentioned West Virginia and East Tennessee. I've already noted Seacy County, Winston County, the Free State of Jones, the Texas Hill Country etc. This myth of "expelling an invading army" was heavily sold by the Lost Cause Cult but not borne out by a lot of real events.

Did you watch my videos at all?

No, I did not. But make no mistake, I didn't not watch them because I'm avoiding the truth.

I could drive a truck through this hole right here.....

I think you should though, if your interest is genuine, if you believe as I do that learning has no end point.

The next section is just reiterating what's already been done, the denial of what the point here is.

The motive behind the propaganda being central is only relevant here as a matter of history. As I said, those who oppose tearing them down today have their own reasons for feeling as they do. If you asked a million of them why they oppose tearing down the statues you'll likely get a million different answers.

Again --- speculation. And why would you get a "million different answers" for something some body of people obviously already agrees on?

It's just an expression for Christ's sake. And you know as well as I do that if you ask a group of people that agree on a core belief why they feel as they do, you'll get different answers. The existence of God, for example. C'mon man.

I'm not suggesting you mean literally the number "one million". I'm asking why you would think there would be such a diversity of reasonings, when you've come up with only one, and a specious one at that?

But at the core is their admiration for these historical figures but more importantly, they view it as an attempt to erase history.

Already debunked. Nobody keeps history in statues. The function of statues is to glorify. There's no argument about that.

We've heard that argument, and it's absurd, as we do not record history in monuments. We glorify events and people with them. The actual history is where it's always been since the beginning of time ---- in the history books. Therefore they cannot be taking their stance on the basis of "preserving history". They can however be taking it on the basis of preserving glorification.

You don't have to convince me, I'm not the one saying it.

[/QUOTE]

 

[IM2]

Brilliant takedowns Pogo.

 

[Pogo]

Brilliant takedowns Pogo.

Thank you sir. It's an area of interested research where I like to leave no stone unturned. We the people deserve the truth about what our history is.

 

[IM2]

Brilliant takedowns Pogo.

Thank you sir. It's an area of interested research where I like to leave no stone unturned. We the people deserve the truth about what our history is.

Amen to that. That's the same way I feel about the history of race relations and I refuse to leave any stone unturned for we need to know the truth so we all can come together the right way.

 

[Picaro]

They've already received billions in reparations. They blew it all, and now need more to keep up their scams.