Monuments and statues - discuss

[Matryoshka]

12 minutes ago, Pen said:

 

By “these statues” do you mean Washington, Churchill, and Gandhi? 

 No, of course not.  I mean the Confederate statues.  While an argument could be made that Washington could fit that description, that war we did win, and the express purpose for the secession was not to hold slaves.  In his case we are not erecting statues to a traitor to our country, but its first president.  I would not expect the UK to be erecting statues to Washington all over the darn place.  The first president or a general of a country that waged war against us has no place here - it gives legitimacy to that uprising.  And as we can see a rallying point for people who still hold the views that led to that war to this day.

Churchill defended his own country out of a war waged against it, and Gandhi non-violently helped lead his own people to end the occupation of a foreign power.  How would they ever fit in the description I gave of Confederate leaders as traitors to our country, or be the reason for the loss of millions of American lives? (Churchill wasn't the reason for America entering WWII, Hitler was.  And I'm thinking zero Americans died liberating India??)

Edited June 24, 2020 by Matryoshka

[Pen]

5 minutes ago, Matryoshka said:

 No, of course not.  I mean the Confederate statues.  While an argument could be made that Washington could fit that description, that war we did win, and the express purpose for the secession was not to hold slaves.  We are not erecting statues to a traitor to our country, but its first president.  I would not expect the UK to be erecting statues to Washington all over the darn place.  The first president  or a general of a country that waged war against us has no place here - it gives legitimacy to that uprising.

Churchill defended his own country out of a war waged against it, and Gandhi non-violently helped lead his own people to end the occupation of a foreign power.  How would they ever fit in the description I gave of Confederate leaders as traitors to our country, or be the reason for the loss of millions of American lives? (Churchill wasn't the reason for America entering WWII, Hitler was.  And I'm thinking zero Americans died liberating India??)

My post was not a reply to any specific post of yours but rather thoughts on the opening post and its questions. 

Your reply was direct to me and thus I thought it was a comment on what I had raised.  

I wasn’t talking about the Confederate statues. I was specifically referring to Washington, Churchill and Gandhi whose statues many seem to want to tear down due to racism.  Or slave owning in Washington’s case. 

This sort of thing:

Yes, Churchill was a racist. It's time to break free of his 'great white men' view of history ...

Jun 10, 2020 · (CNN) Last weekend, during a Black Lives Matter protest in London, a piece of graffiti was added to the base of the statue of Winston ...

Edited June 24, 2020 by Pen

[Terabith]

2 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

And yet Lee was a fascinating historical figure who commanded immense respect on both sides, and explicitly stated that slavery was contrary to his conscience but he felt, as a Virginian, he had to stand with his state.

People are nuanced and complex.  I dislike the simplification and glossing over of it to the detriment of *understanding*, even if one might still disagree.  Personally I think Lee is a lot less black and white than Andrew Jackson.  Or heck, Stonewall Jackson.

Lee might have felt that keeping slaves was contrary to his conscience, but he still kept slaves until he was forced to give them up.  https://acwm.org/blog/myths-misunderstandings-lee-slaveholder/  Lee also did not believe that there should be statues made of leaders of the Confederacy, himself included.  

Stonewall Jackson is not exactly a nuanced case.  Andrew Jackson is more nuanced, in that he was not a literal traitor.  But, I grew up in a town named for Andrew Jackson, and I think the name of that town should be changed, and he should certainly not have statues of himself displayed outside of museums.  

[ktgrok]

56 minutes ago, Momto6inIN said:

I definitely don't think they all need to be put in a museum. But I'm not sure how we decide or who should get to decide.

I definitely agree with you that they shouldn't be in public squares or in places of honor! I'm just saying that we shouldn't throw them out or destroy them all, but put them in a museum. And have a display detailing how they were erected during Jim Crow as a way to keep PoC in their place. I know that I am moved with shame and horror when I see a museum display with a slave auction block or chains from a slave ship, much more than I am of simply reading about them. I realize that PoC don't need these reminders of racism, and that white supremacists would not be moved by them, but surely there are many other white people like me who are not in either category that would be?

I don't think all statues nees to be kept. But I do think there are all sorts of strange things in museums that I appreciate knowing about and that give me a richer view of the past that very likely someone somewhere along the line thought it would be better and kinder and more appropriate or whatever to throw out.

I'd guess the museums decide which ones they want, and ditch the rest. Or put them in confederate graveyards. 

[Matryoshka]

22 minutes ago, Pen said:

My post was not a reply to any specific post of yours but rather thoughts on the opening post and its questions. 

Your reply was direct to me and thus I thought it was a comment on what I had raised.  

I wasn’t talking about the Confederate statues. I was specifically referring to Washington, Churchill and Gandhi whose statues many seem to want to tear down due to racism.  Or slave owning in Washington’s case. 

This sort of thing:

Yes, Churchill was a racist. It's time to break free of his 'great white men' view of history ...

Jun 10, 2020 · (CNN) Last weekend, during a Black Lives Matter protest in London, a piece of graffiti was added to the base of the statue of Winston ...

And my answer to your post about that was why those people have nothing in common with confederate statues, and why, and you quoted the first sentence of one of my paragraphs telling why.

If a statue of Churchill is erected, it's for his role in leading the UK out of WWII.  Not for any racist views he may have had. If we're going to go that far, we'd have to take down virtually all statues of everyone ever. No one put up a statue of Churchill to intimidate a large part of the UK populace.  A statue of Gandhi does not serve to intimidate any of the people of India.

The question is, 'what did this person do that we are honoring him with a statue for?' - and 'is that something we still think should be honored?'

The Confederate statues are erected to glorify racist views, and a whole war waged in their name, and they were erected in a time and place with the purpose of intimidating certain members of the very community they were placed in.  What they did to have a statue erected was want to own other humans with such conviction they were willing to be traitors to their own country and wage a war that killed millions of them.  They are for the most part depicted in their uniforms on horses, for cripes sake.  They are not being honored for some other great cause.  And in the case of Dredd Scott, we know what he got a statue for.  His name is on the case.

Edited June 24, 2020 by Matryoshka

[Pen]

2 minutes ago, Matryoshka said:

And my answer to your post about that was why those people have nothing in common with confederate statues, and why, and you quoted the first sentence of one of my paragraphs telling why.

If a statue of Churchill is erected, it's for his role in leading the UK out of WWII.  Not for any racist views he may have had.   If we're going to go that far, we'd have to take down virtually all statues of everyone ever.  The question is, 'what did this person do that we are honoring him with a statue for?' - and 'is that something we still think should be honored?'

The Confederate statues are erected to glorify racist views, and a whole war waged in their name.  What they did to have a statue erected was want to own other humans with such conviction they were willing to be traitors to their own country and wage a war that killed millions of them.  They are for the most part depicted in their uniforms on horses, for cripes sake.  They are not being honored for some other great cause.  And in the case of Dredd Scott, we know what he got a statue for.  His name is on the case.

 

Ah. 

I misunderstood.

 I thought you were saying that Churchill statues etc should come down and explaining how you viewed them.

 

 

[Matryoshka]

13 minutes ago, Pen said:

Ah. 

I misunderstood.

 I thought you were saying that Churchill statues etc should come down and explaining how you viewed them.

 

Quote

 

These statues are not of ordinary citizens that had 'flaws'.  They're not even of regular soldiers.  They were leaders of a country that is not ours that was founded for the express purpose of the right to enslave other humans and cost millions of American lives.   That is not a 'flaw', or a comment they made in their writings.   They were also literal traitors to the US, the country we all now live in.  And the statues glorify them for doing that, not for some other achievement.

By “these statues” do you mean Washington, Churchill, and Gandhi? 

 

LOL, that's why I was confused that you were confused.  In the very thing you quoted I said I was referring to statues of leaders of a country founded on the express purpose of the right to enslave other humans and cost millions of American lives, and who were traitors to the US.  That could only refer to the Confederacy.  None of the other people you mention make any sense whatsoever in that context.

Edited June 24, 2020 by Matryoshka
trying to get rid of mysterious empty extra quote box - no dice...

[gardenmom5]

42 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

And yet Lee was a fascinating historical figure who commanded immense respect on both sides, and explicitly stated that slavery was contrary to his conscience but he felt, as a Virginian, he had to stand with his state. And he contradicted himself at other points on voting rights and such, but remained a committed, steadfast figure in the American experiment, even though Virginia was unequivocally on the wrong side of this issue and God honoring human rights.

People are nuanced and complex.  I dislike the simplification and glossing over of it to the detriment of *understanding*, even if one might still disagree.  Personally I think Lee is a lot less black and white than Andrew Jackson.  Or heck, Stonewall Jackson. And certainly less vehement in his discussions of race than Charles Darwin and the like.  

Like I said, I’m more in favor of having this decided on a local level, with a vote, and letting them stand it the population as a whole decided it so, or removing them if it goes that direction. But I’m very against the mob ripping them down as though erasing history is ever a healthy response of a strong nation.

I recall learning about Lee in school.  At west point, as a cadet - he had zero demerits. it was incredibly unusual.  When he'd lost a glove and was called out by an upperclassman, one of his own class came to his defense saying that he had lost a glove and Lee gave him one of his.  The other cadet them received the demerits - and Lee remained as having none.  It was such a matter of pride for their entire class.

I was left with the impression the only reason he fought for the confederacy was he felt obligated as a Virginian.  The Lee's were a huge family in the south.  in 1776 - Richard Henry Lee was a member of the continental congress, then became gov' of virginia.  They were referred to as 'the first family" of virginia.

[Pen]

13 minutes ago, Matryoshka said:

 

LOL, that's why I was confused that you were confused.  In the very thing you quoted I said I was referring to statues of leaders of a country founded on the express purpose of the right to enslave other humans and cost millions of American lives, and who were traitors to the US.  That could only refer to the Confederacy.  None of the other people you mention make any sense whatsoever in that context.

 

Lol.  I should have been able to figure that out. Low grade migraine. Not thinking clearly. 

[Terabith]

10 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

I recall learning about Lee in school.  At west point, as a cadet - he had zero demerits. it was incredibly unusual.  When he'd lost a glove and was called out by an upperclassman, one of his own class came to his defense saying that he had lost a glove and Lee gave him one of his.  The other cadet them received the demerits - and Lee remained as having none.  It was such a matter of pride for their entire class.

I was left with the impression the only reason he fought for the confederacy was he felt obligated as a Virginian.  The Lee's were a huge family in the south.  in 1776 - Richard Henry Lee was a member of the continental congress, then became gov' of virginia.  They were referred to as 'the first family" of virginia.

Lee was a man of great personal integrity, and he was a skilled commander.  

But when he inherited 134 slaves with the caveat that they had to be freed within five years, he literally sued a family member to get out of freeing them.  Now, he was worried about paying off debts and such.  But the fact remains that he was willing to use over a hundred human lives to do so.  

Grant, on the other hand, inherited a slave and freed him, even though he was in desperate poverty at the time and selling the slave would have relieved that.  

Plus, they're CRAPPY STATUES.  They weren't put up at the time of the Civil War.  They were put up in the 1920's or later, as a form of psychological warfare against African American people.  

Tear them down.  Tear them all down.

Consider replacing with Dolly Parton.  Or Harriet Tubman.  

[Matryoshka]

9 minutes ago, Pen said:

Lol.  I should have been able to figure that out. Low grade migraine. Not thinking clearly. 

 Ugh to migranes - hope you feel better soon! 

[Katy]

I don't care if mobs tear down statues.

My care went away the day I realized how many completely innocent people had been murdered by police recently.  Something shifted in me.  To quote my dad's coworker...  "No one hates a bad cop more than good cops."

Or maybe it was a few years ago when that kid shot up the black church after praying with them.  I took the time to read some of those Confederate documents I'd always been told had more to do with freedom from national control than with slavery.  I realized I'd been lied to all my life.  That war was about slavery.  Almost everyone who remembers someone who was alive during the civil war is now dead.  There's no false pride left to defend, there's just ugly symbols used to hurt innocent people.

[katilac]

2 hours ago, Dreamergal said:

There are many temples for Ravana in India and I think in Srilanka too (not sure about this, but I have heard about it).

Please excuse me if I word this wrong, I don't think I have enough knowledge to ask it in the best way: I can understand that there are specific temples for Ravana, but would there also be a statue/depiction of him alone in a temple whose members consider him a 'bad guy'? I'm not saying it would be the wrong thing to do so, it would just be very different from Christian churches in the states, which wouldn't have a statue of Satan or a demon just by itself. 

1 hour ago, Monica_in_Switzerland said:

Aren't things like the Colosseum, Pyramids, etc also essentially the glorification of slave labor?  But we recognize that these also bear significant historical importance, so we are not razing them to the ground (yet).  Our history is younger, but no less valid for preservation.  

Those are literally ancient history, and also tremendous achievements, however they were wrought. I rarely see statues in public areas that are decent art, much less a tremendous achievement that should be preserved. I don't think a statue adds anything to the historical record. I doubt most of us could distinguish one guy on a horse from another. 

54 minutes ago, Matryoshka said:

If we find that Rosa Parks incited or was a leader in an actual war for the oppression of others?  

These statues are not of ordinary citizens that had 'flaws'.  They're not even of regular soldiers.  They were leaders of a country that is not ours that was founded for the express purpose of the right to enslave other humans and cost millions of American lives.   That is not a 'flaw', or a comment they made in their writings.   They were also literal traitors to the US, the country we all now live in.  And the statues glorify them for doing that, not for some other achievement.

Bolding by me, I think this is the point exactly. They were literal traitors for the express purpose of keeping slavery. I live in one of the original confederate states, as has my family for as back as our knowledge goes; I take no pride in the confederacy. 

35 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

And yet Lee was a fascinating historical figure who commanded immense respect on both sides, and explicitly stated that slavery was contrary to his conscience but he felt, as a Virginian, he had to stand with his state. And he contradicted himself at other points on voting rights and such, but remained a committed, steadfast figure in the American experiment, even though Virginia was unequivocally on the wrong side of this issue and God honoring human rights.

People are nuanced and complex.  I dislike the simplification and glossing over of it to the detriment of *understanding*, even if one might still disagree.  Personally I think Lee is a lot less black and white than Andrew Jackson.  Or heck, Stonewall Jackson. And certainly less vehement in his discussions of race than Charles Darwin and the like.  

Like I said, I’m more in favor of having this decided on a local level, with a vote, and letting them stand it the population as a whole decided it so, or removing them if it goes that direction. But I’m very against the mob ripping them down as though erasing history is ever a healthy response of a strong nation.

Lee is famous for leading the war against the United States of America. Part of being a hero is standing up against those you love, whether it be your state, your community, or your family. And I don't expect everyone to be a hero, but that's why we don't all have statues. 

Lee was conflicted about slavery, but mostly because he felt it was an 'evil' for the WHITE people! He 100% believed black people needed to be enslaved, maybe not forever and ever, but really the timing was up to God. He was an extremely cruel slave owner who had no compunctions about whippings or about separating families (which was not the done thing). There are really too many things to keep listing; Lee apparently had the best public relations firm in the world, but this article details a lot of the reasons he was actually not nuanced, did support slavery, and shared the worst of the racist views of the day. Most historians do not think that Lee did a good or even decent job at being 'steadfast' to America after the war. 

And I'll add again that taking down a statue is not erasing history. 

[Terabith]

1 minute ago, Arctic Mama said:

And yet even the reasons for the civil war were more complex than just slavery, and Lincoln didn’t necessarily handle it correctly from a constitutional perspective.  Boiling it down to “you fought on the side that believed a bad thing” is not something I will do.  Anyone boiling the civil war down to just slavery is missing much of history, even though I’d say that was the most morally unambiguous part of the whole thing. 
 

And I’m saying this as someone who has never lived in a southern state, and whose family that was in country at the time were staunch republicans abolitionists and religious quakers.  I do not have a dog in the fight, but in trying to understand why ANY reasonable, moral people would justify slavery for economic reasons, I did try to look at the multiple arguments being made in everything from federalism to economic production pressures to religious dichotomy and cultural alienation.  Not to mention why individuals who would oppose slavery still fought for the confederacy, which more than a handful did.  Trying to be fair to the flawed people and motivations of the time and not import a modern moral context into looking at this was one of the best studies we have had as homeschoolers.  Without coercion and with balanced narrative contributions from three sides (union, confederacy, and freed slave), my older kids unequivocally settled on the side of the union being their own perspective, and further that as believers they could take no other path but abolition, even seeing the arguments for retention of slaves from the very best self represented light.  We are better as a family for not just simplifying it down to a black and white 30,000 foot survey from the sky.

I'm 44 years old and have lived 40 of those years in the Confederacy or Texas.  Virginia is my home.  

It really isn't that complicated and nuanced.  The Confederacy was about slavery, because slavery was PROFITABLE.  It was the foundation of the economy.  Sure, they came up with other reasons as justifications, but 99% of it was about money and the economy.  

The statues are causing psychological harm to people who are walking around today.  They're crappy statues erected to commemorate a crappy cause.  We have libraries and museums and university history departments to teach people about the people and the history, far, FAR more effectively than any statue.  

It's literally the LEAST we can do for people who are suffering today.  Like the barest of bare minimums.  Tear them all down.  Heck, tear down the statues of Washington and Jefferson.  People are hurting, afraid, and dying.  That should matter way more than mass produced crappy statues from the 1920's.  

[ktgrok]

When I read the documents, the articles of confederacy, it is about slavery. They are pissed that the northern states wouldn't capture and return their "property" that had escaped, and that slavery wasn't being expanded, etc. It was not about states rights, it was about being mad the federal government wouldn't override the northern states that were letting escaped slaves stay free. That's the opposite of states rights. 

Now, did some of the people that actually did the fighting think it was about states rights? Possibly - in every war you have people in power using propaganda to convince people to lay their lives on the line, and given that the people doing the fighting didn't have slaves most of the time, slavery wasn't a convincing argument for them, I'd wager. Saying, "go die in this war so that I can get my slaves returned to me if they escape" isn't convincing. But "go fight for our soverign rights" is. That doesn't mean it was true though. 

[katilac]

15 minutes ago, Katy said:

I don't care if mobs tear down statues.

My care went away the day I realized how many completely innocent people had been murdered by police recently.  Something shifted in me.  To quote my dad's coworker...  "No one hates a bad cop more than good cops."

Or maybe it was a few years ago when that kid shot up the black church after praying with them.  I took the time to read some of those Confederate documents I'd always been told had more to do with freedom from national control than with slavery.  I realized I'd been lied to all my life.  That war was about slavery.  Almost everyone who remembers someone who was alive during the civil war is now dead.  There's no false pride left to defend, there's just ugly symbols used to hurt innocent people.

I'm wearied by the fact that the tearing down of statues is what gets so many people more riled up than police brutality and murder does. 

Silence, silence, silence . . . omigod, they're TEARING DOWN STATUES, we can't possibly address these other issues while they're tearing down statues! 

 If someone you know posts on social media about "police brutality is wrong but vandalism is also wrong," scroll back and see if they said a word about police brutality being wrong before that. So far, I'm batting zero on finding those prior posts. 

 

[ktgrok]

2 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

Absolutely not.  Tearing them down strictly on the basis of people being upset is the absolute WORST reason to do just about anything as a government.  Make a reasoned argument, have a process, see what the majority of people decide or their representation.  But governing by whoever cries and gnashes teeth the loudest is a terrible precedent and doesn’t lead to good things.  History has demonstrated that globally and over many centuries.

I’m not even particularly pro monument; but an argument that we do it because mobs demand it would galvanize even me.  Have we learned nothing? And these people are tearing down statues of abolitionists and presidents who did MUCH for the cause of present liberty and freedom.  Their opinion doesn’t mean a whole lot when it degrades to that.

So if an area is majority racist, they should keep up the monuments, because the majority wants to? No matter how offensive they are to the minority? 

[gardenmom5]

26 minutes ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

I grew up with that narrative.  That he was such a good admirable man who valued family and loyalty and so when he was faced with a very understandable choice he chose family over politics.  I can remember hearing it from my elementary school teacher, as a justification for our tour of Lee's mansion, and questioning it, even back them.

I think that we need to judge adults by their actions and not by some anecdote from their youth.  In his adulthood, Lee made a choice to align himself with people who sought to perpetuate slavery, and whose actions led to hundreds of thousands of deaths.  Whether or not he liked his family, or shared his gloves doesn't matter in the face of that choice.

 

19 minutes ago, Terabith said:

Lee was a man of great personal integrity, and he was a skilled commander.  

But when he inherited 134 slaves with the caveat that they had to be freed within five years, he literally sued a family member to get out of freeing them.  Now, he was worried about paying off debts and such.  But the fact remains that he was willing to use over a hundred human lives to do so.  

Grant, on the other hand, inherited a slave and freed him, even though he was in desperate poverty at the time and selling the slave would have relieved that.  

Plus, they're CRAPPY STATUES.  They weren't put up at the time of the Civil War.  They were put up in the 1920's or later, as a form of psychological warfare against African American people.  

Tear them down.  Tear them all down.

Consider replacing with Dolly Parton.  Or Harriet Tubman.  

I agree - I think he was stupid.   after pear harbor, yamamoto said "i'm afraid we have awakened a sleeping giant".  He was educated in the US, and had lived here even after he received his degree.  He thought attacking us was foolish, yet he fought for Japan anyway.  I learned long ago, actions speak louder than words.   

 

i never heard the part about Lee suing to keep his slaves. smh.  jefferson said he'd free his slaves when he died - and did not because - money. but he died long before the civil war.  But frankly - I find it hypocritical to complain about them and not Lenin. . . . . 

i do think the desire to humiliate, really rub their faces in their loss, of the south after the civil war was part of what gave rise to the worship by some of the confederacy.  just as the humiliation and, yes, punishment against germany/weimar republic for wwi contributed to hitler's rise to power.    that sort of treatment gives rise to resentment.  rational thought goes out the window.

 

dolly parton?  why?

[Terabith]

Just now, Arctic Mama said:

Do you know of a majority racist area? I have met three actual demonstrable racists in my entire life and not a single one was Caucasian, interestingly enough. 
 

In the real world, that isn’t what we are dealing with. Do you really think whole swaths of whole precincts of this country are motivated by racism if they want to keep a statue or not issue state paid reparations or not allow an occupied zone in their park, etc etc?  Serious question.

You....you haven't lived in the South, have you?  Because the little town my neighborhood borders is DEFINITELY majority racist.  

And, seriously???  Racism is a massively systemic issue.  I guarantee you know more than three demonstrable racists.  

[gardenmom5]

25 minutes ago, katilac said:

 

Those are literally ancient history,  

Belloq:
Look at this. It's worthless - ten dollars from a vendor in the street. But I take it, I bury it in the sand for a thousand years, it becomes priceless.

how old does something have to be to make it ok?  at what point do we stop tearing things down - so they are around and we can use them as object lessons as to WHY something is wrong?

[katilac]

19 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

And yet even the reasons for the civil war were more complex than just slavery, and Lincoln didn’t necessarily handle it correctly from a constitutional perspective.  

The Civil War was first, foremost, and overwhelmingly about slavery. 

4 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

Tearing them down strictly on the basis of people being upset is the absolute WORST reason to do just about anything as a government.  Make a reasoned argument, have a process, see what the majority of people decide or their representation.  

People have been making reasoned arguments for decades, trying to follow or create processes for decades. They're done. If we haven't taken down Confederate monuments or quit flying the Confederate flag and its derivatives in the nearly 60 years since the first Civil Rights Act was passed, do you think it's suddenly going to happen because of one more reasoned argument on top of the thousands that have preceded it? Clearly it wasn't about to happen. Would it happen in ten years? Twenty? Another sixty? 

2 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

When I read the documents, the articles of confederacy, it is about slavery. They are pissed that the northern states wouldn't capture and return their "property" that had escaped, and that slavery wasn't being expanded, etc. It was not about states rights, it was about being mad the federal government wouldn't override the northern states that were letting escaped slaves stay free. That's the opposite of states rights. 

Now, did some of the people that actually did the fighting think it was about states rights? Possibly - in every war you have people in power using propaganda to convince people to lay their lives on the line, and given that the people doing the fighting didn't have slaves most of the time, slavery wasn't a convincing argument for them, I'd wager. Saying, "go die in this war so that I can get my slaves returned to me if they escape" isn't convincing. But "go fight for our soverign rights" is. That doesn't mean it was true though. 

Quoting for truth. 

[matrips]

The concern for me is where is the line drawn.  Especially where mobs are concerned.  It started with the Confederate statues because most people can kind of understand that.  But it’s progressed quickly to so many more, including abolitionists and our presidents.  I don’t really think the movement is truly about black peoples and confederates and such, but about destroying our nation’s republic.  A young Venezuelan woman posted recently talking about how her country went down its path.  She warned Americans to beware; statues is just a first step towards rewriting your country.

[gardenmom5]

2 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

@gardenmom5 on Dolly, she has done so much work for literacy, underprivileged children, domestic abuse, you name it.  A real humanitarian and not one who gets arrested for publicity but doesn’t make actual change.  She has a lifetime of trying to build people up and putting her money where her mouth is 🙂

On the confederacy worship I agree completely with you on the etiology, and don’t really understand it, myself.  But I do think the lack of balance (history being written by the victors, after all) in how it is discussed now can be attributed to how this subject is taught. I know what my California public school system textbook said on the topic vs what I found when I went to teach it to my own kids painted a veeeeery different picture of the politics and economics of the colonies leading up to and through the war and reconstruction.

good for her.  I'm glad to hear she uses her influence to benefit others.  there are people out there that do - and you rarely hear about them.   

and yeah - those who get arrested for publicity.  I like how you termed that.  too true.  all about PR.

treason is a charge invented by the winners as an excuse for hanging the losers.

[Joker]

31 minutes ago, Terabith said:

You....you haven't lived in the South, have you?  Because the little town my neighborhood borders is DEFINITELY majority racist.  

And, seriously???  Racism is a massively systemic issue.  I guarantee you know more than three demonstrable racists.  

Yeah, I’m only in my 40s but when I was growing up in Texas most of the African American kids we were friends with wouldn’t come in our home until they asked if we allowed Black people in. It wasn’t uncommon for them to be told no. I know several in my Midwest area today. I’m floored someone thinks there aren’t majorly racist areas.

ETA: I wanted to be clear that it wasn’t uncommon for them to be told no by other families - not my own. 

Edited June 24, 2020 by Joker

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

Absolutely not.  Tearing them down strictly on the basis of people being upset is the absolute WORST reason to do just about anything as a government.  Make a reasoned argument, have a process, see what the majority of people decide or their representation.  But governing by whoever cries and gnashes teeth the loudest is a terrible precedent and doesn’t lead to good things.  History has demonstrated that globally and over many centuries.

I’m not even particularly pro monument; but an argument that we do it because mobs demand it would galvanize even me.  Have we learned nothing? And these people are tearing down statues of abolitionists and presidents who did MUCH for the cause of present liberty and freedom.  Their opinion doesn’t mean a whole lot when it degrades to that.

I am all for making a reasoned argument, absolutely. But those reasoned arguments have been made for years and years and years to no avail. That is why people are pissed. That is what compels people to say, “If you won’t pay attention when we kneel, maybe you will pay attention when we toss your racist statue in a lake!” I mean, I can understand that. 

It feels like you’re saying, “Well you’re not going to get the cookie while your pitchin’ a fit, child!” This is not so basic as that. 

I, personally, don’t want to see mobs pull down monuments and I’m highly bothered by mobs pulling down Washington or similar figures. But I also think it’s not a surprise that it has come to this because the gentle requests did not work. So many monuments are completely indefensible but in many states and cities, those in power have not given people asking for removal the freakin time of day. They just moan about “erasing history” and continue to be without empathy for how a black person feels as they walk into the Statehouse, with a SCOTUS Justice staring down from a plinth, silently memorializing them as never worthy of citizenship because of their race. I don’t know how that feels, having never been a black person, but I imagine it don’t feel okay. 

[gardenmom5]

26 minutes ago, Terabith said:

I'm 44 years old and have lived 40 of those years in the Confederacy or Texas.  Virginia is my home.  

It really isn't that complicated and nuanced.  The Confederacy was about slavery, because slavery was PROFITABLE.  It was the foundation of the economy.   

 

1776 has a very pointed song that goes over how it was all connected, and even the north was indirectly profiting from slavery.   https://www.allmusicals.com/lyrics/1776/molassestorum.htm  song lyrics.

Lincoln didn't start the civil was because of slavery - he did because the south succeeded.

The commander of fort sumpter in charleston harbor was a southerner.  the union thought he'd be respected (given slack) by the south, as his wife was the daughter of a slave owner in georgia.  Nope - he fought for the union.  he was allowed to take down the union flag when the union  was forced to pull out -and i thought it very apropos he was the one to raise it when the union retook during the civil war.

[Terabith]

6 minutes ago, Joker said:

Yeah, I’m only in my 40s but when I was growing up in Texas most of the African American kids we were friends with wouldn’t come in our home until they asked if we allowed Black people in. It wasn’t uncommon for them to be told no. I know several in my Midwest area today. I’m floored someone thinks there aren’t majorly racist areas.

The first boy I loved was African American.  He was my best friend.  He wanted us to date, and I loved him, but he was Black and I was white, and we lived in Tennessee.  I knew the drama it would create in my family would be awful, so we just remained friends.  He asked me to marry him when we were in college.  In retrospect, it wouldn't have worked out for a whole lot of reasons, including that he didn't want children and I desperately did.  But I was a freaking coward.  

[Sneezyone]

53 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

And yet even the reasons for the civil war were more complex than just slavery, and Lincoln didn’t necessarily handle it correctly from a constitutional perspective.  Boiling it down to “you fought on the side that believed a bad thing” is not something I will do.  Anyone boiling the civil war down to just slavery is missing much of history, even though I’d say that was the most morally unambiguous part of the whole thing. 
 

And I’m saying this as someone who has never lived in a southern state, and whose family that was in country at the time were staunch republican abolitionists and religious quakers.  I do not have a dog in the fight, but in trying to understand why ANY reasonable, moral people would justify slavery for economic reasons, I did try to look at the multiple arguments being made in everything from federalism to economic production pressures to religious dichotomy and cultural alienation.  Not to mention why individuals who would oppose slavery still fought for the confederacy, which more than a handful did.  Trying to be fair to the flawed people and motivations of the time and not import a modern moral context into looking at this was one of the best studies we have had as homeschoolers.  Without coercion and with balanced narrative contributions from three sides (union, confederacy, and freed slave), my older kids unequivocally settled on the side of the union being their own perspective, and further that as believers they could take no other path but abolition, even seeing the arguments for retention of slaves from the very best self represented light.  We are better as a family for not just simplifying it down to a black and white 30,000 foot survey from the sky.

 

Thought leaders of the time were morally consistent in opposing the enslavement of others. The war was about SLAVERY. It was about the economics of SLAVERY. It was about the profits and wealth of SLAVEholders. It was about the free labor SLAVES provided to build most of the southern US. It was about the freedom to enSLAVE others (if I could only scrape together the money to buy some). It was about the right for states to decide whether the enSLAVEment of others should be restricted to the detriment of southern SLAVEholders. What other justifications did you find?

Edited June 24, 2020 by Sneezyone

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, matrips said:

The concern for me is where is the line drawn.  Especially where mobs are concerned.  It started with the Confederate statues because most people can kind of understand that.  But it’s progressed quickly to so many more, including abolitionists and our presidents.  I don’t really think the movement is truly about black peoples and confederates and such, but about destroying our nation’s republic.  A young Venezuelan woman posted recently talking about how her country went down its path.  She warned Americans to beware; statues is just a first step towards rewriting your country.

That’s why I like to see it done by governments. But I think the parallels are apt to the NFL kneeling protests. Some people went bananas over that, “You can’t disrespect the flag like that!” And so on. Instead of listening. When people feel not listened to, it is normal for them to get louder/uglier/less rational about the matter. It’s troubling but I can understand it. 

[ktgrok]

33 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

Do you know of a majority racist area? I have met three actual demonstrable racists in my entire life and not a single one was Caucasian, interestingly enough. 
 

In the real world, that isn’t what we are dealing with. Do you really think whole swaths of whole precincts of this country are motivated by racism if they want to keep a statue or not issue state paid reparations or not allow an occupied zone in their park, etc etc?  Serious question.

Um, yeah? Lots of places. 

29 minutes ago, Terabith said:

You....you haven't lived in the South, have you?  Because the little town my neighborhood borders is DEFINITELY majority racist.  

And, seriously???  Racism is a massively systemic issue.  I guarantee you know more than three demonstrable racists.  

That's what I was thinking! I'm bordering on good ol'Boy florida land. It's racist as heck. We have a huge racism problem in Florida!

26 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

No.  I don’t.  I know plenty of people with varying degrees of prejudice and bias, because every single human does.  But I have met and know well only three people motivated clearly and distinctly by an actual hatred of, and disdain for, other human beings based on their race and racial history.

And yeah, I’ve never lived in the south.  The stuff I have seen in my life speaks to prejudice and cultural splits more than racism.

Ok, racism doesn't mean hatred, to me, it can be predjudice as well. Thinking black people are dirty, or less intelligent, or more dangerous, etc. Those who refer to "darky town" when talking about a neighborhood that is majority people of color, etc. The ones who say "those people" in a hushed voice, looking over their shoulder, etc. Those are racists. Perhaps very fun, normal people otherwise. But racist. 

22 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

good for her.  I'm glad to hear she uses her influence to benefit others.  there are people out there that do - and you rarely hear about them.   

and yeah - those who get arrested for publicity.  I like how you termed that.  too true.  all about PR.

treason is a charge invented by the winners as an excuse for hanging the losers.

There is a WIDE gap between hanging the losers and glorifying them. We've done the latter. 

[LucyStoner]

Confederate monuments that were erected well into the 20th century- take them down.  Schools named after Nathan Bedford et al?  Rename them.  

Statues, sites and museums of American presidents or actually notable people who also owned slaves?  I think taking these down is whitewashing American history.  The Hermitage and Monticello ADDING installations and exhibits that highlight or honor slaves seems to me to be the better option than just closing them.  

The calls from that oh so popular but thoroughly discredited Shaun White dude to remove all images of white Jesus?  From private property?  That's a fan-tas-tic way to alienate lots of people, especially when it disregards that every culture with Christianity portrays the holy family looking like themselves.  

[Sneezyone]

Full disclosure, my daughter was invited to a sleepover with a 'friend' from cheer and I relented and let her go on Monday night. She's not left this house in four months. She called me yesterday and asked me to come get her immediately b/c her 16yo 'friend' made free with some variation of the N-word, said George Floyd's death was staged, and she hates Obama and loves Trump. This is NOT over. Not by a long shot. Burn 'em all down as far as I'm concerned. I have ZERO patience for confederate apologists.

Edited June 24, 2020 by Sneezyone

[MercyA]

41 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

Do you know of a majority racist area? I have met three actual demonstrable racists in my entire life and not a single one was Caucasian, interestingly enough

Oh my goodness, come visit small town northern Indiana. People in my own [former] church twice implied that blacks are lazy. They joked about black people liking watermelon--the very black people who we invited to a picnic once a year.  One very well-respected member used the word n*****. Another mentioned how interracial marriage was wrong--and expected that I would agree with her. And these are just the things myself or someone in my family heard. And we didn't even really hang out with these people, KWIM? Who knows what we would have heard if we did.

I see Confederate flags everywhere lately. In northern Indiana! 

Someone in a local town reported receiving a meeting invitation from the KKK.

And have I heard a single peep from my own local church about police brutality and murder? I have not. I have only heard laments about rioters. 

Edited June 24, 2020 by MercyA

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Ktgrok said:

That's what I was thinking! I'm bordering on good ol'Boy florida land. It's racist as heck. We have a huge racism problem in Florida!

We do here, too, in the majority of my county. There are KKK recruitment papers turning up in my county and I actually had one on my mailbox quite a few years ago. But it is still happening here, so much so that my friend has requested a meeting with our sheriff about this problem. How could that be possible if there were not some overtly racist folks here, not to mention a large amount of “subtly” racist people. I have heard racist remarks, most often of the subtle variety, an uncountable number of times. It is most often said by someone moments after they say, “Not that I’m a racist, but...” and then they proceed to show their racist colors clear as day. 

[Joker]

Just now, MercyA said:

Oh my goodness, come visit small town northern Indiana. People in my own [former] church twice implied that blacks are lazy. They joked about black people liking watermelon--the very black people that we invited to a picnic once a year.  One very well-respected member used the word n*****. Another mentioned how interracial marriage was wrong--and expected that I would agree with her. And these are just the things myself or someone in my family heard. And we didn't even really hang out with these people, KWIM? Who knows what we would have heard if we did.

I see Confederate flags everywhere lately. In northern Indiana! 

Someone in a local town reported receiving a meeting invitation from the KKK.

And have I heard a single peep from my own local church about police brutality and murder? I have not. I have only heard laments about rioters. 

 

My dc attend IU and there have been KKK flyers spread all over campus multiple times. Occasionally they were found inside dorms which really scared students. We had a detour once on our way there and hit an area that had Confederate flags at almost every single home. It’s scary.

[MercyA]

I know this is a tangent, but I just have to say--the early leaders of the United States were themselves traitors to England, responsible for much bloodshed. And much of the reason for that war was taxation, of all things.

I personally don't get the handwringing over statues of Washington. 🤷‍♀️

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

And that hasn’t been my experience in ANY place I have lived.  Never. Maybe I just attract really amazing friend and family circles or something. 

 

Or maybe you're freaking blind and no one tells you crap that might trouble you overmuch or disturb your peace.

[MercyA]

2 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

And that hasn’t been my experience in ANY place I have lived.  Never. Maybe I just attract really amazing friend and family circles or something.

Fifteen years ago I would have said I didn't know anyone who was racist. I did; I just didn't know it.

Not saying this is the case with you, but sometimes people don't show their true colors in polite company. And sometimes they do and we miss it. 

[gardenmom5]

51 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

   Anyone boiling the civil war down to just slavery is missing much of history, even though I’d say that was the most morally unambiguous part of the whole thing. 
 

And I’m saying this as someone who has never lived in a southern state,  

I have an acquaintance from new england.  then they moved to florida - not generally thought of as a southern state.  Their car was vandalized because they were northerners.  the south was alive and well.

i agree history is not black and white (referring to thinking here) - there are plenty of nuances and other forces that contribute to why societies do things.

35 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

When I read the documents, the articles of confederacy, it is about slavery. They are pissed that the northern states wouldn't capture and return their "property" that had escaped, and that slavery wasn't being expanded, etc. It was not about states rights, it was about being mad the federal government wouldn't override the northern states that were letting escaped slaves stay free. That's the opposite of states rights. 

Now, did some of the people that actually did the fighting think it was about states rights? Possibly - in every war you have people in power using propaganda to convince people to lay their lives on the line, and given that the people doing the fighting didn't have slaves most of the time, slavery wasn't a convincing argument for them, I'd wager. Saying, "go die in this war so that I can get my slaves returned to me if they escape" isn't convincing. But "go fight for our soverign rights" is. That doesn't mean it was true though. 

that anger is still alive.  I'm one who believes hate only begets more hate and it never ends well.   (I also believe everyone should be treated with respect.  what a different world we would if everyone did that.)

I'm sure there were people who thought state's rights is what it was about.  it's that idea that is probably what has given rise to the popularity of confederate flags, et al, especially in areas outside the deep south. the mistaken notion it's about "individuality".   only about 25% of southerners actually owned slaves.  and most of those people did not own plantations.   My  mother was from missouri (my mother's family arrived in the 1840s) - a slave state.  in their entire (miniscule) town, there was one slave who was to be a "mother's helper".   she stayed in the town and worked as a nurse after the war.  

[MercyA]

1 minute ago, Arctic Mama said:

That could be, because my husband and I would shut that down right away, I don’t tolerate bigotry. I’ll have a reasoned, patient, logical discussion with plenty of passionate disagreement forever, but I can’t say we’d be ‘safe people’ for someone to show major prejudice to. That’s probably fair. 

That's great. I think with shame about times in the past when I was silent and should have spoken up. I want to do better, that's for sure.

[gardenmom5]

14 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

 

There is a WIDE gap between hanging the losers and glorifying them. We've done the latter. 

It was a Benjamin Franklin quote.

My objection to grinding the faces of the losers into the ground - is because it creates animosity that frequently comes back to bite succeeding generations.

a lot of those confederate statues built long after the civil war - I believe was about a humiliated people trying to recover their self-respect.  (no I don't think it was an effective way to do it, but I believe that is why it started.)  hate begets hate, begets animosity and resentment.  forcing people to change doesn't work, what changes people is changing their hearts.  that mean's actual leadership and teaching of how to be a better person.

  Amazing Grace - the author of the hymn was a slave ship captain.  his heart changed, that's why he wrote the hymn "a wretch like me".  he was profoundly remorseful for having participated in the trade.  that's what it takes.

 

[LucyStoner]

6 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

That could be, because my husband and I would shut that down right away, I don’t tolerate bigotry. I’ll have a reasoned, patient, logical discussion with plenty of passionate disagreement forever, but I can’t say we’d be ‘safe people’ for someone to show major prejudice to. That’s probably fair. 

On these boards over the years, I have had people say things like this to me and also, when confronted with very clear and obvious examples of racism say things like "how do you know it was racism"?  When the answer really is quite as simple as "for the same reason I know the sky is blue."

If you see it basically nowhere, you may be oblivious to it in ways that your life experiences allow you to be.  Why would you expect to see it if it were there?  How would you recognize it if you haven't had any reason to either experience it or see someone very close to you experience it?   

2 minutes ago, MercyA said:

That's great. I think with shame about times in the past when I was silent and should have spoken up. I want to do better, that's for sure.

 

Thank you for your nuanced and self reflective comments on these types of threads.  You often say what I want to say better than I ever could say it.  

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, MercyA said:

That's great. I think with shame about times in the past when I was silent and should have spoken up. I want to do better, that's for sure.

Same. Sometimes I have just been so surprised at the statement, I couldn’t think of anything, or anything useful to say. What I wish I had said was, “Uncle Bob! Surely you aren’t implying you would disown your kid if they married a black person!” But what I actually said was, “Err...we like her fine...” (A representative incident, but not a single one.) 

[LucyStoner]

5 hours ago, MercyA said:

I know this is a tangent, but I just have to say--the early leaders of the United States were themselves traitors to England, responsible for much bloodshed. And much of the reason for that war was taxation, of all things.

I personally don't get the handwringing over statues of Washington. 🤷‍♀️

Someone's traitor can well be someone else's hero.  I think it's possible for two things to be true about someone at the same time.  I'm not especially attached to any of our early presidents (JQA is probably the one who fascinates me the most, but only because after he was President, he returned to the House for a long time).  I do think that it's possible to discuss just how wrong it was of Washington and Jefferson to profit off of the labor of others without basically cancelling them from any memorialization as early American leaders.  

Edited June 25, 2020 by LucyStoner

[Sneezyone]

19 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

It was a Benjamin Franklin quote.

My objection to grinding the faces of the losers into the ground - is because it creates animosity that frequently comes back to bite succeeding generations.

a lot of those confederate statues built long after the civil war - I believe was about a humiliated people trying to recover their self-respect.  (no I don't think it was an effective way to do it, but I believe that is why it started.)  hate begets hate, begets animosity and resentment.  forcing people to change doesn't work, what changes people is changing their hearts.  that mean's actual leadership and teaching of how to be a better person.

 

 

The animosity is already here. It never left. The south was down for a hot minute before it started terrorizing and re-enslaving black people through incarceration. This foolishness and sympathy needs to die a quick death. We can start by not perpetuating tropes directly linked to the Daughters of the Confederacy.

Edited June 24, 2020 by Sneezyone

[katilac]

 

1 hour ago, gardenmom5 said:

 do think the desire to humiliate, really rub their faces in their loss, of the south after the civil war was part of what gave rise to the worship by some of the confederacy.  just as the humiliation and, yes, punishment against germany/weimar republic for wwi contributed to hitler's rise to power.    that sort of treatment gives rise to resentment.  rational thought goes out the window.

Well, I disagree that there was any widespread effort to humiliate the south after the civil war. Many in the south viewed Reconstruction as humiliating, but that doesn't make it so. Should they have been allowed to just all go home and sort it out as they wished? They lost a war, not an argument. The Confederate surrender was graciously accepted, with Grant not even allowing Union soldiers to cheer. Confederate soldiers were not imprisoned and they were not prosecuted for treason - they were simply allowed to go home. What more could the losing side want? Reconstruction only turned into Radical Reconstruction when the south persisted in ongoing violence against black people, and in enacting one oppressive law after another.  

1 hour ago, Arctic Mama said:

Do you know of a majority racist area? I have met three actual demonstrable racists in my entire life and not a single one was Caucasian, interestingly enough. D
 

In the real world, that isn’t what we are dealing with. Do you really think whole swaths of whole precincts of this country are motivated by racism if they want to keep a statue or not issue state paid reparations or not allow an occupied zone in their park, etc etc?  Serious question.

Yes, I know of majority racist areas! Plural, not singular. And I don't know what you mean by "actual demonstrable racists" but I promise that you've met many more than three of them in your life, with many many of them being Caucasian. I'm flummoxed that someone who has lived in America their whole life would question whether there are majority racist areas.  

Yes, I really think whole swaths of the country are motivated by racism when they don't want to stop displaying Confederate monuments and statues and flags! 

If you want to break your heart, watch clips from a show Bill Moyers did in 1978 about racial tensions in Rosedale (NYC). A pipe bomb was exploded at the home of a black family who had the temerity to buy a house in the neighborhood. A mob of white children chased and terrorized some black children who took a shortcut, screaming the n-word, throwing rocks, kicking their bikes, issuing threats . . . not one or two bad kids, but a mob of kids willing to do this with zero provocation. 1978. I was 12 in 1978, so they are now in their 50s. Do you think all or a majority of them grew up to be NOT racist? I'd love to think that some of them did, but this was hardly the only incident of its kind and that means there are hella racists still around. And a lot of the parents would be 60s and 70s, also still around. And voting. And fighting to keep Confederate monuments up. 

1 hour ago, Terabith said:

And, seriously???  Racism is a massively systemic issue.  I guarantee you know more than three demonstrable racists.  

Quoting for truth. 

1 hour ago, gardenmom5 said:

Belloq:
Look at this. It's worthless - ten dollars from a vendor in the street. But I take it, I bury it in the sand for a thousand years, it becomes priceless.

how old does something have to be to make it ok?  at what point do we stop tearing things down - so they are around and we can use them as object lessons as to WHY something is wrong?

Okay, I'm going to toss my ancient history argument into the weeds and focus on to the part you didn't quote. What is worthy about a Confederate monument, how are they achievements? And I'll repeat this from my prior post:  I rarely see statues in public areas that are decent art, much less a tremendous achievement that should be preserved. I don't think a statue adds anything to the historical record. I doubt most of us could distinguish one guy on a horse from another. 

So, does that mean everything from the Confederate era that could be an object lesson should be torn down? Not necessarily. There are many southern plantations still in existence. Most of them are much greater achievements in terms of art and architecture than Confederate statues, and they were not built well after the fact to glorify the confederacy the way the statues were. It is possible to use them as lessons in history - Whitney Plantation in particular is notable for focusing exclusively  on the lives of the enslaved. They are a museum and teach actual living history lessons in a way that a statue can never do. So, for me, Whitney Plantation would be an excellent example of an actual Confederate artifact (not a manufactured one) that serves a purpose along the same lines as a preserved concentration camp. 

But there are tons of plantation museums, like hundreds of them. Very few of them focus more on the enslaved than the slavers, or they talk about slaves only in terms of the work they accomplished. The ones that talk more about the white family's fabled history and the beautiful gardens than the slaves that suffered and died? The ones that invite you to have a lavish wedding and essentially dance on their graves? Yeah, eff that noise, those don't need to exist. 

Edited June 24, 2020 by katilac

[Matryoshka]

5 minutes ago, MercyA said:

Oh my goodness, come visit small town northern Indiana. People in my own [former] church twice implied that blacks are lazy. They joked about black people liking watermelon--the very black people who we invited to a picnic once a year.  One very well-respected member used the word n*****. Another mentioned how interracial marriage was wrong--and expected that I would agree with her. And these are just the things myself or someone in my family heard. And we didn't even really hang out with these people, KWIM? Who knows what we would have heard if we did.

I see Confederate flags everywhere lately. In northern Indiana! 

Someone in a local town reported receiving a meeting invitation from the KKK.

And have I heard a single peep from my own local church about police brutality and murder? I have not. I have only heard laments about rioters. 

My church had a whole 8-week seminar on resisting white supremacy, with an outside moderator who gives these seminars to various churches.  My church is pretty darn liberal and inclusive and well-meaning, the above overt stuff wouldn't happen, but in this seminar some people said things that surprised me (and of course were there with the clear idea that they were against racism).  Sometimes we have ideas that are racist but never examined them to realize it.  

I just finished Ibram Kendi's book How to Be an Antiracist, and one of the things I thought was very useful about it is that he carefully defined all the terms he used, as people seem to have different definitions for the same word, so having clear definitions makes sure we're all talking about the same thing.  I thought this part was especially powerful:

"What's the problem with being 'not racist'?  It is a claim that signifies neutrality: 'I am not a racist, but neither am I aggressively against racism'.  But there is no neutrality in the racism struggle.  The opposiste of 'racist' isn't 'not racist.'  It is 'anti-racist.'  What's the difference?  One endorses either the idea of a racial hierarchy as a racist, or racial equity as an antiracist.  One either believes problems are rooted in groups of people, as a racist, or locates the roots of problems in power and policies, as an antiracist.  One either allows racial equities to persevere, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an antiracist.  There is no in between safe space of 'not racist'.  The claim of 'not racist' neutrality is a mask for racism.  That may seem harsh, but it's important at the outset that we apply one of the core principals of antiracism, which is to return the word 'racist' itself back to its proper usage.  'Racist' is not a pejorative.  It is not the worst word in the English language; it is not the equivalent of a slur.  It is descriptive, and the only way to undo racism is to consistently identify and describe it - and then dismantle it.  The attempt to turn this usefully descriptive term into an almost unusable slur is, of course, designed to do the opposite: to freeze us into inaction.

...

"The good news is that racist and antiracist are not fixed identities.  We can be racist one minute and antiracist the next.  What we say about race, what we do about race, in each moment, determines what - not who - we are."

[goldenecho]

I've thought a lot about how these statues should be preserved with their history...not in town squares or other places of honor, but in a way that clearly contextualizes them (ideas I plan to polish up and submit to museums and historical organizations).

Here are how I think museums should display these statues.

Fully erect statues should be shown as they are, but they should be put in a sunken area, so that people's first view of them are not the statues towering over them, but below them.   They should have to pass this view to get to the next stage where they can be seen more closely.

On the route to the statues should be information about why these statues were erected and their role in history.

On this, the ground level, behind the statues,  large black and white or sepia photographs or illustrations of slavery (preferably photos from the men's own plantations if possible) should be shown, to properly put these men in context.   The number of slaves these men owned, and any war crimes these men have committed should be included in large text in red over the black and white pictures.   A bio of the men, and a summary of the history of the statue (the artists, who funded it, where it was placed, when it was removed) should be included in smaller print next to the statue, as well as a photograph of the statues original placement.

Statues of Robert E. Lee should be treated differently, as he was not a slave owner.  I think behind his statue should be quotes he wrote opposing the building of statues like these as he opposed them, because he thought it would only make it harder for the nation to heal.    His statue might work well in the entryway, with the quotes being a way to help set up the history of these statues.

Also, if there are statues available that are not of specific people, but generally about confederate troops, these should be treated differently, focusing more on the people from the south who died in the war.

Statues damaged as they were removed should be shown as is, in their crumpled state, located on the route out, with pictures of their toppling on the wall behind them or next to them, and information/news clips about their toppling included in a smaller placcard.   This would incorporate the history happening now into the story.

[katilac]

4 minutes ago, goldenecho said:

 Statues of Robert E. Lee should be treated differently, as he was not a slave owner.   

What? No! Robert E Lee was a slave owner, and a cruel one who authorized beatings with whips and separated families by selling family members. 

[MercyA]

12 minutes ago, Quill said:

Same. Sometimes I have just been so surprised at the statement, I couldn’t think of anything, or anything useful to say. What I wish I had said was, “Uncle Bob! Surely you aren’t implying you would disown your kid if they married a black person!” But what I actually said was, “Err...we like her fine...” (A representative incident, but not a single one.) 

Right?!? Actually, when the watermelon comment was made at my church, a friend who was there just asked calmly, "What do you mean by that?" I think if I could remember a few phrases like that to buy me some time it would help: "What do you mean by that?", "Why would you say that?", "Tell me more about why you think that." 

I am horrible at replying immediately, off-the-cuff, and admire people who can do it skillfully.