A majority of Americans want to preserve Confederate monuments - Reuters/Ipsos poll

[LannaGuy]

4 minutes ago, iReason said:

 

Yes. That Traitor.

 

Lee was not appointed to "Washington and Lee" university.

 

"Washington and Lee was founded in 1749 as a small classical school named Augusta Academy"

"In 1796, George Washington endowed the struggling academy with a gift of stock, one of the largest gifts to an educational institution at the time; in gratitude, the school was renamed for the first United States President."

"In 1865, after his surrender at Appomattox Court House, former General Robert E. Lee served as president of the college until his death in 1870, when the college was renamed Washington and Lee University."

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

 

 

I was being sarcastic it NOW named after Lee is it not? he was appointed to Washington College was he not?  bit odd for your 'traitor' is it not?

[helpisgood]

10 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

Of course 'irrelevant' to you as it does not suit your sanitized view of history. These monuments are historical not glorification. 

Sanitized?  So, are you saying that states that committed an act of secession from the US govt. is not insurrection?  Check your dictionary. 

 

And, as iReason correctly pointed out above in post no. 18, the secession was about keeping their system of slavery.  Not a cause I'd be involved in. 

[iReason]

5 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

I was being sarcastic it NOW named after Lee is it not? he was appointed to Washington College was he not?  bit odd for your 'traitor' is it not?

 

Caught out being uninformed and now, it was "sarcasm". 

 

"bit odd for your 'traitor' is it not?"

 

Indeed it is.

 

If you are American, he is your Traitor as well.

[zydeco]

4 hours ago, iReason said:

 

They were traitors to the United States of America.

Then why were widows and survivors of Confederate soldiers given the same U.S. pension rights as Union soldiers' widows and survivors?

http://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/85/425.pdf

[SABloke]

Just now, ezzra said:

So why not erase any and all history of slaves owning nations on earth

since the down of times why don't we? clean slate right? and if we

 go there, we should also erase other shameful events in history, and they

were many of those too many to for this page....

I agree, but these anti-history people would probably object to Ghandi, Dr. King and Nelson Mandela being erased etc. They'd want to preserve "good" history. (How very Prayuth-ish of them)

[zydeco]

36 minutes ago, Gecko123 said:

They do have historical significance, and probably shouldn't be sold for scrap. Put them in a museum which those who are interested can visit.  Leaving these statues up in public places is way too socially divisive, and they should have been taken down long ago. Statues don't just represent who we have been but who we aspire to be as a people. Hitler, Himmler, Hess, Goebels and company were part of history too, but you don't see statues of them in Germany's public squares and parks, for good reason.

 

Those who argue in favor of keeping these statues in public places need to ask themselves how they would feel walking past a statue of someone who fought to keep their ancestors enslaved?

Statues of Caligula still exist in Rome. And on the Arch of Titus you can see a relief of Roman soldiers carrying away loot from Jerusalem. The list of these sort of things is actually endless and can be found in any nation or part of the world.  Past rulers or military men who committed what could easily be termed atrocities and/or genocide but who still have their statues up. Not to mention that the biggest mass murderer in history, Mao, has his portrait looming over all the tourists in Tiananmen.

Edited August 22, 2017 by zydeco

[Thaidream]

Amereicans of any stripe and background cannot ignore the History of the Nation. Unfortunately, some of that History is going to involve actions that were oppressive; discriminatory and downright evil.  Studying History and learning from it hopefully will avert repeating it.

 

To me- the statues and other commemorative places represent a study of why they exist and who the person was that represents that moment in History. The Civil War was essentially fought to preserve the evil of slavery as the South secessionists wanted to continue to use slaves in their fields .To a person of color these monuments represent an evil and bring back memories of difficult times. Most of them were not placed there for this purpose but as History is written and explained- the monuments will represent an evil that can never be repeated.

 

As a white American when I look at the Vietnam memorial- I can't help feel that the government lied; that I served in an unethical cause; and that thousands of Americans and millions of Vietnamese died  because of greed and power.  I don't want the Memorial torn down as it represents a symbol to the fallen but also to a time of turmoil and a hope that something like it never happens again.

 

There is a difference from wanting to preserve History as a teaching tool and such groups as white supremacists and the KKK wanting to go back in History and preserve their legacy of oppression. There is no place in the World for hate groups and they should be roundly condemned.

 

What should be stressed is that America has evolved through the decades and has laws that protect the rights and lives of people of all colors; ethnic background etc and that people need to work together to move the country forward. The sins of the past should remain in the past- not forgotten but never repeated. Tearing down statues and symbols doesn't remove what happened in the past- and it won't take the hate out of those determined to hate.

[Jonnapat]

Why anyone would want to be continually reminded of the dark days of American history totally baffles me.

[mikebike]

27 minutes ago, zydeco said:

Then why were widows and survivors of Confederate soldiers given the same U.S. pension rights as Union soldiers' widows and survivors?

http://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/85/425.pdf

Reconciliation? Or would you prefer scorched earth victory?

Edited August 22, 2017 by mikebike

[iReason]

32 minutes ago, zydeco said:

Then why were widows and survivors of Confederate soldiers given the same U.S. pension rights as Union soldiers' widows and survivors?

http://uscode.house.gov/statutes/pl/85/425.pdf

 

Nice try.

I've seen that misrepresentation on the alt-right and neo Nazi sites recently.

 

They've tried it before.

Where nine African Americans were gunned down in a Charleston, South Carolina church by a white supremacist

who liked to tote a Confederate flag.

And then there was a movement to remove the monuments to traitors and the racist flag from government property.

 

From 2015:

Busting the myth that Congress made Confederate vets into U.S. vets

"This claim was being made even before the violence in Charleston."

 

"The original legislation was introduced to raise pensions for widows and former widows of deceased veterans of the Spanish-American War."

"In committee, it was amended to include widows of deceased U.S. veterans of the Civil War and Indian War, as well as widows of Confederate veterans."

https://www.facingsouth.org/2015/07/busting-the-myth-that-congress-made-confederate-ve

 

1958 U.S. Public Law 85-425 Does Not Give “Confederate Vets” U.S. Vet Status

"Since the violence in Charlottesville Virginia last week between alt-left anarchist agitators and white supremacist rally goers there is an increase in internet traffic that says that in 1958 Congress bestowed U.S. veteran status on “Confederate veterans.”

 

“SEC. 410. The Administrator shall pay to each person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War a monthly pension in the same amounts and subject to the same conditions as would have been applicable to such person under the laws in effect on December 31, 1957, if his service in such forces had been service in the military or naval service of the United States.”

 

"The law has been seen as symbolic in nature as the time of passing of this law there were only two surviving “Confederate veterans” living."

https://unfilterednewsnow.wordpress.com/2017/08/17/1958-u-s-public-law-85-425-does-not-give-confederate-vets-u-s-vet-status/

 

The bill did not provide "Veteran" status.

[zydeco]

4 minutes ago, iReason said:

 

Nice try.

I've seen that misrepresentation on the alt-right and neo Nazi sites recently.

 

They've tried it before.

Where nine African Americans were gunned down in a Charleston, South Carolina church by a white supremacist

who liked to tote a Confederate flag.

And then there was a movement to remove the monuments to traitors and the racist flag from government property.

 

From 2015:

Busting the myth that Congress made Confederate vets into U.S. vets

"This claim was being made even before the violence in Charleston."

 

"The original legislation was introduced to raise pensions for widows and former widows of deceased veterans of the Spanish-American War."

"In committee, it was amended to include widows of deceased U.S. veterans of the Civil War and Indian War, as well as widows of Confederate veterans."

https://www.facingsouth.org/2015/07/busting-the-myth-that-congress-made-confederate-ve

 

1958 U.S. Public Law 85-425 Does Not Give “Confederate Vets” U.S. Vet Status

"Since the violence in Charlottesville Virginia last week between alt-left anarchist agitators and white supremacist rally goers there is an increase in internet traffic that says that in 1958 Congress bestowed U.S. veteran status on “Confederate veterans.”

 

“SEC. 410. The Administrator shall pay to each person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War a monthly pension in the same amounts and subject to the same conditions as would have been applicable to such person under the laws in effect on December 31, 1957, if his service in such forces had been service in the military or naval service of the United States.”

 

"The law has been seen as symbolic in nature as the time of passing of this law there were only two surviving “Confederate veterans” living."

https://unfilterednewsnow.wordpress.com/2017/08/17/1958-u-s-public-law-85-425-does-not-give-confederate-vets-u-s-vet-status/

 

The bill did not provide "Veteran" status.

You have answered a question I did not ask. The question remains why were Confederate widows and survivors given US veteran survivor benefits.  We didn't hand them out to the Spanish in Cuba, the Germans in World War I and II, the Japanese in World War II, or Mexicans in the Mexican American war. That's the question. And while we're at it, I thought news sources had to be approved for TV Forums.  This one you cite looks to me like nothing more than a partisan blog, masquerading as "news." Pretty much fits the definition of fake news then, doesn't it?

[Rancid]

Here we go, the progressive revisionists are really polishing their jackboots, Christopher Columbus' memorial has been vandalized, apparently the oldest in the country. Left were signs "Racism, tear it down" and "The future is racial and economic justice".

 

The Taliban were reportedly even shocked...s/

[i claudius]

In the new left wing world, it is of no consequence what the majority wants

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[zydeco]

3 minutes ago, i claudius said:

In the new left wing world, it is of no consequence what the majority wants

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

The Left wants its own Mao-like Cultural Revolution throughout the West. Nothing will satisfy them until they can set a new calendar at year 0.  All totalitarian regimes want to erase the past so that they can indoctrinate future generations without the slightest opposition. BTW,  I'll bet that the numbers in that poll actually undercount the percentage of people who want to preserve Confederate monuments. In this sort of environment, with the media hysteria running at about 99 percent, people feel cowed into saying things they think others want to hear. Frankly, it is nothing short of amazing that most want the monuments preserved, especially with the implicit threats of violence and explicit threats to take away people's jobs, homes, and online presence if they dare utter the slightest word that doesn't equate every view they disagree with as "Nazi" or "racist."

[IAMHERE]

1 hour ago, Jonnapat said:

Why anyone would want to be continually reminded of the dark days of American history totally baffles me.

I was taught that if you don't remember history then you are destined to repeat history. I'd rather not repeat splitting up America even if it is a good idea.

[simon43]

.the antifa people looked a lot like taliban soldiers when they tore down the buddhas a few years back...

 

Agreed.  I think protesters on all sides and opinions should be legally required to show their faces.  Certainly, those who commit violence (and that is being committed by both sides of these protests) cannot commit their violence behind the mask of anonymity. 

[helpisgood]

1 hour ago, zydeco said:

You have answered a question I did not ask. The question remains why were Confederate widows and survivors given US veteran survivor benefits.  We didn't hand them out to the Spanish in Cuba, the Germans in World War I and II, the Japanese in World War II, or Mexicans in the Mexican American war. That's the question. And while we're at it, I thought news sources had to be approved for TV Forums.  This one you cite looks to me like nothing more than a partisan blog, masquerading as "news." Pretty much fits the definition of fake news then, doesn't it?

After the Confederacy surrendered, such widows and survivors could again be recognized as American citizens.  The other peoples you have mentioned are not American citizens.  I can't believe that I have to explain this.  

 

As for the purpose of these pensions, you can look that up for yourself.  The mere fact that Congress gave pensions to them is not relevant to the OP.  You are off topic.  Congress, in its wisdom, can decide to be helpful to Americans regardless of the past transgressions of whomever unless it is in violation of the US Constitution.  The pensions are not a legal basis for condoning or accepting acts of secession from the union, if that is your point.  However, it is clear that certain Southern states did, or try, to secede from the union, which is an act of insurrection. 

 

My own guess is that pensions were bestowed as either an act of reconciliation for the benefit of the country as a whole or a deal made with Southern congresspeople or an act of pragmatism to ensure that certain American citizens contribute more to the economy or simply an act of decency or any combination thereof.  It was not a Congressional imprimatur for any past wrongs.      

 

[helpisgood]

2 hours ago, zydeco said:

Statues of Caligula still exist in Rome. And on the Arch of Titus you can see a relief of Roman soldiers carrying away loot from Jerusalem. The list of these sort of things is actually endless and can be found in any nation or part of the world.  Past rulers or military men who committed what could easily be termed atrocities and/or genocide but who still have their statues up. Not to mention that the biggest mass murderer in history, Mao, has his portrait looming over all the tourists in Tiananmen.

So what?

 

We are not discussing what best serves China or ancient Rome.  They have their own issues.  The OP concerns an American problem unique to the American experience and the context in which these statues were erected. 

 

This is just a deflection. 

 

 

Edited August 22, 2017 by helpisgood

[helpisgood]

2 hours ago, Thaidream said:

Amereicans of any stripe and background cannot ignore the History of the Nation. Unfortunately, some of that History is going to involve actions that were oppressive; discriminatory and downright evil.  Studying History and learning from it hopefully will avert repeating it.

 

To me- the statues and other commemorative places represent a study of why they exist and who the person was that represents that moment in History. The Civil War was essentially fought to preserve the evil of slavery as the South secessionists wanted to continue to use slaves in their fields .To a person of color these monuments represent an evil and bring back memories of difficult times. Most of them were not placed there for this purpose but as History is written and explained- the monuments will represent an evil that can never be repeated.

 

As a white American when I look at the Vietnam memorial- I can't help feel that the government lied; that I served in an unethical cause; and that thousands of Americans and millions of Vietnamese died  because of greed and power.  I don't want the Memorial torn down as it represents a symbol to the fallen but also to a time of turmoil and a hope that something like it never happens again.

 

There is a difference from wanting to preserve History as a teaching tool and such groups as white supremacists and the KKK wanting to go back in History and preserve their legacy of oppression. There is no place in the World for hate groups and they should be roundly condemned.

 

What should be stressed is that America has evolved through the decades and has laws that protect the rights and lives of people of all colors; ethnic background etc and that people need to work together to move the country forward. The sins of the past should remain in the past- not forgotten but never repeated. Tearing down statues and symbols doesn't remove what happened in the past- and it won't take the hate out of those determined to hate.

The Vietnam War Memorial analogy is a false one.  It is clearly not glorifying what America did in Vietnam.  The statues in the OP are clearly glorifying an act of insurrection known to some as the "Lost Cause," and the statues are on public properties. 

 

You are right that taking down the statues will not change the past, but that's not the point.  It does show that - presently and in the future - the "Lost Cause" should no longer be glorified.  

Edited August 22, 2017 by helpisgood

[funandsuninbangkok]

Interesting article in WSJ today. Most of these statues were erected by Daughters of the Confederacy during reconstruction. They were in some ways intentionally threatening during Jim Crow. 

 

My my opinion is it's a municipal issue. If your town has one and they vote to junk it, fine. 

 

Republicans got bigger fish fish to fry.

 

End Global Taxation on Americans! Repeal FATCA!

[iReason]

12 minutes ago, funandsuninbangkok said:

Interesting article in WSJ today. Most of these statues were erected by Daughters of the Confederacy during reconstruction.

They were in some ways intentionally threatening during Jim Crow.

 

Bingo! 

[Thaidream]

Your point is well made.  The Civil War statues represent an Era which is being glorified but rather than have open disagreement- I would hope that local communities could come together and work out a reasonable compromise.  There is no place for hate groups such as the KKK or Neo Nazis to latch onto this issue and try and spew their hatred.

 

The question is how far do we go - George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were slave owners yet they are responsible for the establishment of the Republic. Do we tear down their statues also?   I just watched a documentary on Robert E. Lee who  graduated from West Point and served for 30 years in the Union Army and then resigned and joined the Confederate Army. Lee wrote that slavery was wrong but he felt an allegiance to his families Virginia History and felt that the issue of States Right was worth fighting for.  The World was completely different then.  I don't know the answer as I think there are points on both sides. As mentioned, I would hope individual communities could openly discuss the issue and reach accommodation without rancor.

[Foozool]

8 hours ago, FreddieRoyle said:

When I heard the anti-Trumpers wanted to blow up the Stone Mountain in Georgia, I thought they were joking. They weren't. This has all got totally out of hand, it started with a statue and has now progressed to huge historical monuments, next will be works of art, bank notes, music, anything that could be construed as having a relation to unfortunate chapters of White history.

 

 Suffice to say, re-writing history is wrong. full stop.

This is the way "fake" news spreads, right❓?

Sorry, Russians already have tried this for Trump, we already know about fake news. ???

Edited August 22, 2017 by Foozool

[mikebike]

4 hours ago, Thaidream said:

Your point is well made.  The Civil War statues represent an Era which is being glorified but rather than have open disagreement- I would hope that local communities could come together and work out a reasonable compromise.  There is no place for hate groups such as the KKK or Neo Nazis to latch onto this issue and try and spew their hatred.

 

The question is how far do we go - George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were slave owners yet they are responsible for the establishment of the Republic. Do we tear down their statues also?   I just watched a documentary on Robert E. Lee who  graduated from West Point and served for 30 years in the Union Army and then resigned and joined the Confederate Army. Lee wrote that slavery was wrong but he felt an allegiance to his families Virginia History and felt that the issue of States Right was worth fighting for.  The World was completely different then.  I don't know the answer as I think there are points on both sides. As mentioned, I would hope individual communities could openly discuss the issue and reach accommodation without rancor.

Think of it in todays terms to make it easier.

 

I am a muslim. I think ISIS/Taliban/extremist groups are wrong but I feel an allegiance to my Muslim brothers and sisters and my Arab history and feel that the issue of foreign hegemony is worth fighting for.

 

Howz that sit with y'all?

Edited August 22, 2017 by mikebike

[ikbenhet]

I'm not American and I do not know much about that period except what I have read about and seen in documentaries etc.. 

But it's really hard for me to think that the American civil war was only or even partially, about slavery.

 

 

 

 

 

[mikebike]

6 hours ago, zydeco said:

You have answered a question I did not ask. The question remains why were Confederate widows and survivors given US veteran survivor benefits.  We didn't hand them out to the Spanish in Cuba, the Germans in World War I and II, the Japanese in World War II, or Mexicans in the Mexican American war. That's the question. And while we're at it, I thought news sources had to be approved for TV Forums.  This one you cite looks to me like nothing more than a partisan blog, masquerading as "news." Pretty much fits the definition of fake news then, doesn't it?

One more time, very slowly : R-E-C-O-N-C-I-L-I-A-T-I-O-N... Look up WWll reconciliation if you are having a hard time with the concept.

[tryasimight]

6 hours ago, Jonnapat said:

Why anyone would want to be continually reminded of the dark days of American history totally baffles me.

The jews seem to want to remind everyone of their misfortunes at the hands  of the Nazis

[sangtip2]

What do you want to do ?   Mimic George Orwell's 1984  and re-write all of history.  You can not change history ?  Do you really want "History" forgotten for ever ?

[LannaGuy]

8 hours ago, iReason said:

 

Caught out being uninformed and now, it was "sarcasm". 

 

"bit odd for your 'traitor' is it not?"

 

Indeed it is.

 

If you are American, he is your Traitor as well.

And you "dodge', as always, my point that if he is considered a 'traitor' then why the position at the Washington College and sub-naming  +++ even 'Dukes of Hazard' car!  lol

 

You seem very 'sensitive' and over-confident that you speak for the American people why not run for office? 

[LannaGuy]

5 hours ago, Thaidream said:

Your point is well made.  The Civil War statues represent an Era which is being glorified but rather than have open disagreement- I would hope that local communities could come together and work out a reasonable compromise.  There is no place for hate groups such as the KKK or Neo Nazis to latch onto this issue and try and spew their hatred.

 

The question is how far do we go - George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were slave owners yet they are responsible for the establishment of the Republic. Do we tear down their statues also?   I just watched a documentary on Robert E. Lee who  graduated from West Point and served for 30 years in the Union Army and then resigned and joined the Confederate Army. Lee wrote that slavery was wrong but he felt an allegiance to his families Virginia History and felt that the issue of States Right was worth fighting for.  The World was completely different then.  I don't know the answer as I think there are points on both sides. As mentioned, I would hope individual communities could openly discuss the issue and reach accommodation without rancor.

Already made the US Presidents and their 100s slaves point but the minority PC Maoists here don't want to discuss that just they are "offended" by the 'traitor' R.E Lee etc.   It's history but we gotta PC it these days!  

 

do I sense a bit of the old 'Khemer Rouge' about this?  wipe out history, sanitize the past, apologise for those we like (so your statues are safe Washington and Jefferson because you are 'in')