"General Lee Statue removed?" Topic

Legion 4

Exactly. This is the point I was trying (but clearly failing) to make some other posters see.

A quick Google search will tell you that there are those in America who want to pull down statues of Custer, Jackson, Columbus etc. Indeed, these days, virtually anything will suddenly be considered 'offensive' to someone or other if they are determined for it to be so. Amazing how they were not so animated about it a few years ago.

I always wonder if our generation's determination to air brush from history those who made their money from the slave trade will be replicated by future generations – perhaps targeted at those figures who made their money from cigarettes, alcohol, oil, cars etc.

In any case, asking about hypothetical can help to understand the reasoning behind your view. If there is some consistent logical principles being applied to come to a conclusion, it should be possible to apply them to some hypothetical situation and determine a result.

But the truth is, that's not how people work. People start with an instinctive belief based on their values and experiences, and do whatever mental gymnastics are necessary to justify those beliefs.

Forcing someone to apply their contorted logic consistently to other situations just makes the gymnastics harder. It doesn't change anyone's mind. When the mental gymnastics get too hard to do, people usually just get angry about it.

Albino Squirrel

Another excellent post – do please keep them coming. I also think the question about Custer is not hypothetical in any case – seems there are indeed those who want to remove his statues, so it did not seem unreasonable to ask if those posting here support these efforts too.

link

Or is that 'different' somehow, one wonders.

It is hypothetical. The fact is, and the fact that you absolutely miss, is that the CSA statues are being taken down (by vote by city councils) because they, factually, were put up to glorify a myth and subjugate a race of people.

Custers statues, as far as I can tell, were put up to honor his birthplace and where he grew up.

The strawman of "this generation are all snowflakes, everything is offensive! They're all pretending. I'll be clever and ask about every American history statue until I get an answer I want" is not based in fact around the current discussion. It's juvenile and not based on reality.

Cut it out with the "stop getting angry" etc. It's BS.

While we're sharing links: link

Why shouldn't we ask about every American history statue? Surely your position should be coherent? Interestingly it only took me to ask about one statue (Custer) before you were unable / unwilling to answer.

Not playing your whataboutism games. Please address the topic at hand, not logical leaps based on false assumptions.

link

Here are some Americans who oppose / are offended by the Statue of Liberty, Mount Rushmore, Columbus Circle, the Andrew Jackson Monument and the George Armstrong Custer Equestrian Monument. Nothing hypothetical about it. Do you agree with them?

muggins

You are beyond parody – you are the one who asked if I would support the building of a statue to Osama bin Laden in America, and now you are throwing a tantrum about 'whataboutism'.

All anyone is asking is for you to have a logical and rational position on this.

I was showing you how absurd your hypotheticals are, chief.

Again, everything is logical. See above. Happy to help.

Right.

Anyone else fancy having a go at answering the question about Custer?

GreenLeader

Don't hold your breath waiting for muggins to answer a question: you may be waiting a very long time.

I'm surprised that muggins would provide a link on 'whataboutism' as some of his actions on this thread appear to follow such a technique. He has called his own evidence "irrefutable" and my beliefs as "mythological" yet refuses to address general comments such as when I said "I can see why people see the CSA as being fighting for slavery [rather than to maintain their state rights] but I don't see why this must lead to statues of historical figures being torn down [new emphasis]" (21 August 2017 9:22 p.m. PST). Nor does he consider responding to specific examples when I provided a few (23 August 2017, 4:15 pm PST) when such examples may contradict his position except to respond with a general comment that the statues should be taken down partly because of their "… continued use by tiki torch wielding Nazis".

I already answered the Custer hypothetical. Please see above.

What you described isn't whataboutism on my part. I urge you to read the definition again. If you misunderstood what I wrote I'm sorry about that. You're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.

You haven't. Frantically trying NOT to answer the question, what you said was:

"Custers (sic) statues, as far as I can tell, were put up to honor his birthplace and where he grew up".

So I will ask again:

Do you also agree with those who want Custer's statues removed or not?

Yes or No?

Sure, I'll answer again:

The whole thread is about taking down statues that were put up to glorify a myth and subjugate a race of people.

Custers statues were not put up for that kind of reason, as far as I can tell. I don't have a lot of time to research for each hypothetical. Therefore, I'm not really sure why you're asking, as it doesn't pertain to the topic.

But, if indeed the Custer statues were not put up for the same reason as the csa statues, then I don't see a reason to take them down.

Are we done with hypothetical games now?

(and again, quit it with the toxic condescending statements – nothing I said was frantic.)

@ muggins

The first sentence of your whataboutism link says "Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument".

It seems to me that not responding directly to my viewpoints (and many others), or cited evidence: and then, when a response is offered, the response refers to "continued use by tiki torch wielding Nazis" and calls my beliefs "mythological" would fit the definition fairly well. Your recent introduction to the thread of irrelevant things such as: Osama bin Laden; Colin Kaepernick burning a flag; adding President Barack Obama to Rushmore; and whataboutism itself when the topic is removing statues of CSA leaders (specifically R E Lee) would seem to fit within a broad definition of whataboutism (as the topic is either ignored, writers are dismissed or accused of something, and you then ask things like 'what about Osama bin Laden et al').

muggins

Once again, you seem very keen to move on from discussing something which is obviously very awkward for you to answer, but which is actually the very crux of the debate. And, no – I will not 'quit it' with anything: if you are feeling the pressure, that is not my fault. You refused to give a straight Yes / No answer to a simple question.

I am not sure I can agree with your claim that 'the whole thread is about taking down statues that were put up to glorify a myth and subjugate a race of people'. That strikes me as your opinion rather than provable fact. These statues were there for almost a century – is it only now that we have suddenly decided they were erected to 'glorify a myth and subjugate a people'?

Others would say that the statues are there to honour / remember important figures in America's military history: one of the barracks at West Point is named after General Lee too, for example. Was this also done to subjugate someone? Was the M3 Lee tank thus named to subjugate someone?

Why do you suppose that, in early November 2016, the Charlottesville Council Blue Ribbon Commission voted 6-3 in favour of keeping both the 1924 statue of Lee and the 1921 statue of 'Stonewall' Jackson in place, but then, less than a month later, voted 7-2 to remove the statue of Lee, but 8-1 to keep the statue of Stonewall Jackson?

link

link

Had they suddenly decided, do you suppose, that one was erected to 'glorify a myth and subjugate a race of people', but the other wasn't? Who decided which was which, do you think? What historical 'fact' do you suppose was unearthed in the short time between the votes which suddenly painted Lee's statue as being there to 'glorify a myth and subjugate a race of people'?

And what historical fact was discovered between then and now for the Commission's 8-1 vote about 'Stonewall' Jackson's statue to be ignored by the Council and the statue removed anyway?

What I need you to try and explain to me is why the equestrian statue erected in 1910 of General Custer – the one which, as per the links I provided earlier, is found deeply offensive by some Native American groups – was not erected to 'glorify a myth and subjugate a race of people', but the one of Lee was. Please can you explain why these Native American groups are wrong in this case, but you are right in the case of the ACW statues? Is there no mythology around Custer and the Little Big Horn? Were the Native Americans not subjugated?

Maybe both Custer's and Lee's statues should be placed in a suitable museum ?

"It seems to me that not responding directly to my viewpoints (and many others), or cited evidence: and then, when a response is offered, the response refers to "continued use by tiki torch wielding Nazis" and calls my beliefs "mythological" would fit the definition fairly well."

I have responded to dozens of viewpoints in this thread. I am not sure what you're talking about, but it probably doesn't exist.

"Your recent introduction to the thread of irrelevant things such as: Osama bin Laden; Colin Kaepernick burning a flag; adding President Barack Obama to Rushmore; and whataboutism itself"
Yep, that's the whole point. It shows you how ridiculous the constant hypotheticals are. I'm glad you see it.

"when the topic is removing statues of CSA leaders (specifically R E Lee)"
Nobody has talked about that for pages. Its all about marxism, antifa, and now how many snowflakes there are in America and how being offended is fake, and how the statues were only taken down because people are offended (hint: that's false).

"Once again, you seem very keen to move on from discussing something which is obviously very awkward for you to answer, but which is actually the very crux of the debate. And, no – I will not 'quit it' with anything: if you are feeling the pressure, that is not my fault. You refused to give a straight Yes / No answer to a simple question."
Nobody's feeling any pressure. You're mischaracterizing me and that's against TMP's rules. Quit it with the condescending tone.

"I am not sure I can agree with your claim that 'the whole thread is about taking down statues that were put up to glorify a myth and subjugate a race of people'. That strikes me as your opinion rather than provable fact. These statues were there for almost a century – is it only now that we have suddenly decided they were erected to 'glorify a myth and subjugate a people'?"

This has already been proven multiple times. Please see the cited primary sources on many of the pages here. Not gonna go over it again if you can't be bothered to read.

"Others would say that the statues are there to honour / remember important figures in America's military history: one of the barracks at West Point is named after General Lee too, for example. Was this also done to subjugate someone? Was the M3 Lee tank thus named to subjugate someone?"
It is unlikely that statues in West Point were meant to further the lost cause myth, but I haven't researched that particular statue. Please read previous pages with copious amounts of information about each statue and when they were put up, and why.

"What I need you to try and explain to me is why the equestrian statue erected in 1910 of General Custer – the one which, as per the links I provided earlier, is found deeply offensive by some Native American groups – was not erected to 'glorify a myth and subjugate a race of people', but the one of Lee was. Please can you explain why these Native American groups are wrong in this case, but you are right in the case of the ACW statues? Is there no mythology around Custer and the Little Big Horn? Were the Native Americans not subjugated?"

I don't know anything about your Custer statue. Perhaps it was raised to show native americans how great the whites were for taking all their land. I don't know and I don't have time to research it. The CSA statues, which are the topic of this thread, most of them in the South, were erected during times of Civil Rights strife in this country, and many were cited, using primary sources, as boons to the lost cause myth and the ability to show how great the white race is. This is fact. Trying to skew the discussion to another statue that isn't the topic of the thread is, again, whataboutism.

"Why do you suppose that, in early November 2016, the Charlottesville Council Blue Ribbon Commission voted 6-3 in favour of keeping both the 1924 statue of Lee and the 1921 statue of 'Stonewall' Jackson in place, but then, less than a month later, voted 7-2 to remove the statue of Lee, but 8-1 to keep the statue of Stonewall Jackson?

link

link

Had they suddenly decided, do you suppose, that one was erected to 'glorify a myth and subjugate a race of people', but the other wasn't? Who decided which was which, do you think? What historical 'fact' do you suppose was unearthed in the short time between the votes which suddenly painted Lee's statue as being there to 'glorify a myth and subjugate a race of people'?

And what historical fact was discovered between then and now for the Commission's 8-1 vote about 'Stonewall' Jackson's statue to be ignored by the Council and the statue removed anyway?"

I don't know, unless I dig into the actual accounts from each person who voted, and to be honest I don't have time for that right now. Why don't you just state what you're trying to get at instead of playing games.

@ muggins

You said: "I have responded to dozens of viewpoints in this thread. I am not sure what you're talking about, but it probably doesn't exist." I provided you with dates and times from this thread: the responses I refer to are yours!

You said: "Yep, that's the whole point. It shows you how ridiculous the constant hypotheticals are. I'm glad you see it." Yes, I see it. That list I provided was all irrelevant things you have introduced to this thread within the last 48 hours.

You said: "Nobody has talked about that for pages. Its all about marxism, antifa, and now how many snowflakes there are in America and how being offended is fake, and how the statues were only taken down because people are offended (hint: that's false)." I am not responsible for others (you included) for moving away from the topic: I have stuck to it and have never mentioned Marxism, antifa or snowflakes until just now.

Looking back, yes, your opinions rested solely on the Lost Cause myth. A spade is a spade.

muggins

Thanks for not bothering to answer a single question I asked, or explaining to me why you so readily dismiss the views of the Native American group I presented. I note with wry amusement that you suddenly claim not to have the time to do any research at all… and yet you still hold fast to your entrenched viewpoint.

Though it should be abundantly obvious, what I have been 'trying to get at' is to make you see that, when it comes to putting historical figures into pigeon holes, things are more complex , and to try to get you to take a broader view of matters, rather than leaping aboard the latest trendy band-wagon – .

muggins

Lost cause!? I used well-known documents to show historical events are not determined by just examining one side or one document. It is necessary to look at the motivations and actions of both sides. This is how you can arrive at a better understanding of events.

Unfortunately, as with GreenLeader's question (and others), you fail to address statements or questions with considered facts of your own to form a reasoned argument and instead attempt to obfuscate through name calling or changing the subject from the topic at hand.

"I certainly do not see the Cornerstone speech as "irrefutable evidence the war was about slavery" given that a large part of it is concerned with money issues as I mentioned above. Furthermore, when the war started and until almost the end, the USA continued to maintain slavery in several of its states. Specifically, the 13th amendment was not passed until January 1865 and did not get ratified until December 1865 when Lincoln was dead."

This was your quote, and it shows a determination to believe in the lost cause mythology. Enough said.

I pointed out all the primary sources, all the historical facts and reasoning pages ago. No changing of subjects, nothing. Again, I think you're misremembering but that is understandable, since the thread has been filled with so much noise.

It is ludicrous to assume that every statue of any confederate was "put up to glorify a myth and subjugate a race of people". Even every statue of Robert E. Lee, who obviously had some admirable qualities.

Then again, I find motivation of the people who paid for the statues to be irrelevant at this point, so it wouldn't matter anyway.

Exactly. This is the point I was trying (but clearly failing) to make some other posters see.

A quick Google search will tell you that there are those in America who want to pull down statues of Custer, Jackson, Columbus etc. Indeed, these days, virtually anything will suddenly be considered 'offensive' to someone or other if they are determined for it to be so. Amazing how they were not so animated about it a few years ago.

I too see it as who will "divine" what stays and what goes ? And say why … etc., etc., …
Seems like a situation without a good answer …

"Then again, I find motivation of the people who paid for the statues to be irrelevant at this point, so it wouldn't matter anyway." – Albino Squirrel

It's only irrelevant if you feel the to ignore the facts in order to advance a specious argument.

"No one is making you participate here, muggins. No point coming in here and getting angry about what's here. I think we will be able to get over the loss of your contributions." – Albino Squirrel

EDITOR: How is this not a personal attack?

IF you look at the timeline of when the statues were erected, it's during the height of the Jim Crow era and there's a separate peak during the civil rights era. I don't see how this isn't obvious…

link

No, Wulfgar. It's irrelevant to me because I care what the mean to people today, not what they meant to the person that paid for them a hundred years ago. You could take two pretty similar statues, one that was erected "to glorify a myth and subjugate a race of people", and another that wasn't. But they don't mean anything different to people today.

I don't ignore facts and haven't made any specious argument.

How was what I said at all a personal attack? That doesn't many any sense.

It is not worth it Martin From Canada, facts like that don't matter.

From the list on Wikipedia of memorials to Robert E Lee, I checked to see when the statues of him were completed. They were in the following years: 1884, 1896, 1910, 1917, 1924, 1932, 1933, 1936, 1948, 2003.

I didn't make a full list of years for all the historical markers, and many of them didn't say when they were erected, but there didn't appear to be any sinister pattern emerging with those either.

Thank you, Albino Squirrel for admitting that inconvenient facts don't matter to you.

Again, how is this not a personal attack?

"No one is making you participate here, muggins. No point coming in here and getting angry about what's here. I think we will be able to get over the loss of your contributions." – Albino Squirrel

That is vicious and demeaning, and a lot of people wouldn't allow you to say that to their face. The impression it gives is that if you can't deny the facts, then its okay to resort to a personal attack.

EDITOR: This is shameful. What are you going to do about it? I've seen other people doghawsed for much less.

"there didn't appear to be any sinister pattern"

Does this help?

Are you ignoring inconvenient facts, muggins?

Having reviewed the forum rules, evidently I did break this rule:

But they are annoying me. Can I tell them to leave?
No. Don't even suggest it…

So while it wasn't a personal attack, it was a suggestion that someone leave (though only because they constantly complained about the discussion and wanted the thread locked). So I take that back. I wouldn't want to make anyone feel like they shouldn't be welcome to contribute their thoughts.

Also it should be noted that what I said was in response to this:

Its 11 pages of the same circular reasoning, juvenile hypothetical questions that have nothing to do with the topic (see above), ignoring of facts, and hilarious strawmen. It makes the forum look bad. I don't know how many posts were dedicate to paranoid conspiracy theories about marxism and antifa, but if I were a new ACW interested person I'd run away as quickly as possible.

What's not true about the quote?

Can you address the timeline image posted above? ( it's been posted multiple times in this thread already)

When you look at just monuments, there isn't much of a spike during the civil rights movement. The little increase there is during that period is more likely due to it being 100 years since the war.

There are probably a lot of factors that went into the spike in the early 20th century. One being that the veterans were starting to get old and retire at that time. One being that "In the late nineteenth century, technology innovations in the granite and bronze industries helped reduce costs, and made monuments more affordable for small towns. Companies looking to capitalize off of this opportunity often sold nearly identical copies of monuments to both the North and South." So a lot of those are generic civil war soldier monuments that were used both north and south. In fact, many times more of these statues were erected in the North during that time than the south, and presumably they were not erected to promote the lost cause myth or Jim Crow laws.

So, I think the graph is intentionally misleading and leaves out a lot of information that might lead one to a different conclusion.

Also, the "Spikes" you drew cover half the graph. What is that really supposed to correspond to?

I think the graph provided by Martin from Canada clearly shows two peaks. However, the article also states that the graph "excluded nearly 2,600 markers, battlefields, museums, cemeteries, and other…symbols"!

This leads me to seriously doubt the accuracy of the graph which claims "There were two major periods during which the dedication of Confederate monuments and other symbols spiked" because without the inclusion of those 2,600 markers etc. (when a far lesser number of 1,500 are included) it is impossible to factually support the claim of the two spikes. A visit to the source site (SPLC) sheds no real light on what markers were excluded other than to say they were "largely historical in nature". Therefore it appears that the study was more subjective rather than objective and any claims made by it must be left in serious doubt.

I personally have no doubt that many statues were erected during the periods claimed. But does this mean that those erected outside those periods are to be exempt from removal, vandalism and destruction? Does it also mean that 2,600 (that are "largely historical in nature") are also exempt from removal, vandalism and destruction?

Given that there are approximately 4,100 (2,600 plus 1,500) markers and statues in total then it would appear that only about 1000 of the grand total should even be considered for removal (I didn't count all the dots but it looks like about two-thirds of the 1,500 fall within the peak periods). I do not think any of them should be removed as I do not think who erected them is sufficient reason to remove them given the length of time they have been around. In itself this gives them an historical gravitas as the vast majority have achieved a vintage status (over 20 years old), most were erected outside living memory, and many are now achieving antique status (over 100 years old).

The article states that the statues in the timeline are Confederate statues, not generics.

If the reason something is done doesn't matter to you, the there really isn't much more of a discussion to be had. You're interested in defending something despite clear motives just to stick it to certain people.

Quaama, the chart is for statues, monuments and place names in the public sphere. That is to say, as an enduring reminder of White Supremacy in the South.

The final tally, which "excluded nearly 2,600 markers, battlefields, museums, cemeteries, and other…symbols," identified 1,503 "Confederate place names and other symbols in public spaces, both in the South and across the nation," including 718 monuments and statues, and 109 public schools named for Confederate icons.

Also, how are American kids learn about the "evils" of Hitler's Nazis without statues in the public square commemorating the commandants of various death camps :-/

@ muggins

The article does not say "that the statues in the timeline are Confederate statues" it says "1,503 "Confederate place names and other symbols in public spaces, both in the South and across the nation," including 718 monuments and statues [my emphasis]".

Also, please don't try to silence discussion ("there really isn't much more of a discussion to be had") by paraphrasing "If the reason something is done doesn't matter to you" when I actually said " I do not think any of them should be removed as I do not think who erected them is sufficient reason [new emphasis] to remove them given the length of time they have been around. In itself this gives them an historical gravitas as the vast majority have achieved a vintage status (over 20 years old), most were erected outside living memory, and many are now achieving antique status (over 100 years old)."

Additionally, please don't make determinations on why I have written something ("You're interested in defending something despite clear motives just to stick it to certain people.") as you can not know my motivations.
For the record, it is not my intention to 'stick it' to anybody here. My general position is that I am not in favour of any historical item being removed, vandalised or destroyed unless there is sound arguments and reasons for doing so. Overall, the vandalism and 'removals' (often in the middle of the night) make me feel uneasy (I have other concerns as well).
If a specific statue is to be removed then many things need to be considered including: who it is of; who erected it; why it was made and for what reason; current opinion (which would not be considered a simple majority rules); and what will be gained (or lost) by removal. Never would this permit blatant vandalism or destruction without proper process.

@ Martin from Canada

Please see above in relation to your first sentence.

In reference to your second sentence: oh no, no, no, no, no, I'm not going to divert down that path. There have been enough diversions on this topic already.

As pointed out, there is a lot besides just statues in that graph. Also, if one were at all serious about determining how meaningful any of that is, they would have made the same graph for union symbols and compared the two. That graph is from a pretty untrustworthy source, and the fact that they didn't bother to do something that should have been extremely obvious is pretty telling.

At any rate, I have already said several times that the reason any particular statue is put up isn't going to sway my opinion of taking them all down or even taking down that particular one. That's your justification for your opinion, not mine.

"clear motives just to stick it to certain people" is the interpretation you have chosen, not mine. I don't think that. And clearly there is plenty of discussion to be had.

"Also, please don't try to silence discussion ("there really isn't much more of a discussion to be had") by paraphrasing "If the reason something is done doesn't matter to you" when I actually said " I do not think any of them should be removed as I do not think who erected them is sufficient reason [new emphasis] to remove them given the length of time they have been around."

You stated what I said, then stated what I said in your own words.

Again, we're at an impasse. City councils and actual residents of the cities are saying they don't want to be around statues erected for the lost cause myth and white power and you're saying you don't care.

This is also a forum rule:

People are posting about something stupid. Can I tell them to shut up?
No. They have the right to talk, and you have the right to read (or not read) their posts. [SHUT-UP RULE]

I didn't tell you to shut up, I said there's no discussion. What do you want anyone to say? At this point the same facts have been posted a dozen times, the same hypotheticals and rhetoric has come up a dozen more times. Facts get presented, they get called 'ludicrous' and fake news. A few days ago when the thread re-started against my better judgment I re-entered – perhaps its just best for the hypotheticals and hugbox congratulating to continue.

Anyone have a theory on why so many union statues went up at the beginning of the 20th century? Were those also erected to glorify the lost cause myth, and should we therefore tear down all Union civil war monuments?

Dear Albino Squirrel

In the small park in the center of Newton is one of those statues to the Union veterans. This by the way is the one Antifa and several local people want to tear down because they think it's of a confederate general. They tried again by the way, were told to go pound salt.

This statue was put up at that time. It seems that as the Civil War was receding in time it was passing out of living memory and many people felt a loss at so many of their neighbors and family were passing on that the memory of them and their sacrifices needed to be perpetuated. They felt that the memory of the war and all its horrors nd honors should not die but be commemorated. Many people at the time of the erection of the statues had grown up at their fathers kneed telling of their experiences in the great Civil War and that this was a heritage that should not be lost. There is an almost identical statue in Wilton Maine, and throughout the places I have travelled I have seen them. People in the North put up statues in Union garb. People in the South put up statues in Rebel Garb. That's because that was the old moldering uniform that was in pops or grand-pops closet (if they had ever had one in the South.)

This was the story taken from the NJ Herald at the time, and by the Way from several other papers. Dot, who was an editor of the NJ Herald discovered this when she was doing a paper for her college degree, and had researched a dozen other newspaper articles from various points of the country. The firm that mass produced these statues (and made them in Northern and Southern versions, had arisen primarily out of this desire to commemorate.

This should be ended now. It has got way off topic.

Agreed, Wolf Tone. This is the 600th post. A good place to shut the foolishness down.

B