217 replies to this topic

[BSLChrisStoner]

To be REALLY honest, I'd say that the next step could be the Maryland flag. So if you want to start an argument there, you're welcome to do so.

...and people will looooose their shit.

Yeah, I saw a recent post somewhere of someone discussing the Red / White in the Flag, and the history of that.

I could see that debate exist.

I'd like to think that people can look at the State flag now, and say the flag today doesn't represent those ideals.... but if enough people feel differently, I could get behind a change.

[mweb08]

I actually don't think this is a case of PC or not. This may be the only issue I don't correlate the 2 though.

Many of these types of issues are exactly about PC and this country being overly pathetic. I just don't find this issue to be one of them.

That being said, there is always a next step in these causes.

And my question is and was, what if that next step is saying you can't teach about the civil war?

I mean, there are people who say the pledge of allegiance shouldn't be said. You think it's some crazy leap that some will say you can't teach about slavery and the civil war? Lol

 

A rare time I quote you, but yes, that is absolutely a crazy leap. The two things you mention have absolutely nothing to do with a movement to stop teaching the Civil War. The group that argues for taking down the statues is by and large the same group that has argued for a more accurate teaching of our history. There's just no logic to support this leap.

 

If you want to say that statues of slave owners may become more of a target, that would be a more logical leap, and one that first tweet McNulty posted handles very well: "This isn't hard. The Founders are honored despite their sins. Confederate figures are honored precisely because of their sins."

 

The pledge is a whole other matter and quite frankly inconsequential IMO, but there isn't a relation here. 

[mweb08]

Radley Balko‏Verified account @radleybalko  2h2 hours ago

More

This isn't hard. The Founders are honored despite their sins. Confederate figures are honored precisely because of their sins.

 

Charles P. Pierce‏Verified account @CharlesPPierce  3h3 hours ago

More

Removing Confederate statues isn't sanitizing history, it's fumigating history. That difference is everything. http://www.esquire.c...statues-reason/ http://www.

 

Jamil Smith‏

Verified account@JamilSmith  21h21 hours ago

More

All these folks worried about erasing history when the Confederate statues come down will be thrilled to learn about the existence of books.

 

That first tweet is very well said and such an important distinction. 

[SportsGuy]

A rare time I quote you, but yes, that is absolutely a crazy leap. The two things you mention have absolutely nothing to do with a movement to stop teaching the Civil War. The group that argues for taking down the statues is by and large the same group that has argued for a more accurate teaching of our history. There's just no logic to support this leap.

If you want to say that statues of slave owners may become more of a target, that would be a more logical leap, and one that first tweet McNulty posted handles very well: "This isn't hard. The Founders are honored despite their sins. Confederate figures are honored precisely because of their sins."

The pledge is a whole other matter and quite frankly inconsequential IMO, but there isn't a relation here.

The relation is that if a group of morons wants to get rid of the pledge, another group of morons could definitely say stop teaching about the CW.

[BSLChrisStoner]

The relation is that if a group of morons wants to get rid of the pledge, another group of morons could definitely say stop teaching about the CW.

So, because a group of morons could hypothetically want to not teach the Civil War... that provides justification for not removing the statues?

If removing the statues is the right thing to do (and it is)... you do that, and you deal with subsequent ramifications / discussions after.

It's not about, "What is enough?"  It's about debating topics individually as they arise.

[mweb08]

The relation is that if a group of morons wants to get rid of the pledge, another group of morons could definitely say stop teaching about the CW.

 

That's not a relation. With that logic, you could literally combine any two ideas which you find to be moronic, even ones that are completely opposite on that particular ideological spectrum.

[McNulty]

The part where he said can you look a little black girl in the eyes and tell her this doesn't limit her....I welled up a little.  

 

Can you?  Can you?

[Cisc-O's]

Did anybody's history class ever make it to WWII before the end of the school year?  Actually, that might be part of the problem these days.

Yes.  The school also created a class called 20th century history where the beginning was WW1.  In that class we got to the wall coming down.  

[The Epic]

The part where he said can you look a little black girl in the eyes and tell her this doesn't limit her....I welled up a little.  

 

Can you?  Can you?

 

There's a lot of things I talk to my son about. One thing I don't really want to have to tell him is why people glorify ownership of our ancestors. 

 

I will have to have that conversation with him anyway, I understand. But it'll be a helluva lot easier if, say, an individual has a confederate flag at his house or on the back of his shirt, as opposed to an actual statue on state property. 

[The Epic]

Yeah, I saw a recent post somewhere of someone discussing the Red / White in the Flag, and the history of that.

I could see that debate exist.

I'd like to think that people can look at the State flag now, and say the flag today doesn't represent those ideals.... but if enough people feel differently, I could get behind a change.

 

I'll be honest and say that while I do feel a certain way, I get that people love the flag not because of its tradition, but because it's so deliciously weird. Like, this isn't a "heritage not hate" thing, I don't think. It's just so ugly and special and ours. 

[mweb08]

I'll be honest and say that while I do feel a certain way, I get that people love the flag not because of its tradition, but because it's so deliciously weird. Like, this isn't a "heritage not hate" thing, I don't think. It's just so ugly and special and ours. 

 

I think that's right. I don't think the vast majority of people were even aware of the history behind it (I wasn't) until there were recently some stories about it, and even now, a strong majority of people probably still aren't aware of it. 

 

So the reasons for the love of the MD flag is generally drastically different than the reasons for the love of confederate monuments. 

 

But I am open to viewpoints that suggest otherwise. 

[mweb08]

BTW, in Germany where they have banned Nazi symbols and monuments, it is also mandatory to teach WW2 and the Holocaust. Which makes sense, since those ideas actually go together. If you want to prevent a white supremacist uprising or people from having those views, you both take away the glorification of it and teach the history of it honestly and accurately. Of course that isn't going to completely prevent people from having those views, but it helps. 

[SportsGuy]

So, because a group of morons could hypothetically want to not teach the Civil War... that provides justification for not removing the statues?

If removing the statues is the right thing to do (and it is)... you do that, and you deal with subsequent ramifications / discussions after.

It's not about, "What is enough?" It's about debating topics individually as they arise.

I disagree...because when you allow one thing to happen, you open the door to other things. You can't ignore that aspect of things. Every action has some level of consequence.

Whether this exact example is an example of that is to be seen. But there are enough overly sensitive people out there where it wouldn't surprise me.

[mweb08]

Let's just never change anything because who knows what the consequences will be. 

[mweb08]

BTW, taxpayer money supports the maintenance on these monuments. Talk about a waste of taxpayer money. 

[mweb08]

A good article from April, another time when this was a big topic: https://www.theatlan...numents/479751/

 

And this right here is key in terms of understanding why these monuments and here and why people fly the confederate flag.

 

But what about the importance of historical memory? Even that argument may be somewhat spurious, as the SPLC report demonstrates. Many of the treasured monuments that seem to offer a connection to the post-bellum South are actually much later, anachronistic constructions, and they tend to correlate closely with periods of fraught racial relations, as my colleague Yoni Appelbaum has noted. South Carolina didn’t hoist the battle flag in Columbia until 1961—the anniversary of the war’s start, but also the middle of the civil-rights push, and a time when many white Southerners were on the defensive about issues like segregation and voting rights.

A timeline of the genesis of the Confederate sites shows two notable spikes. One comes around the turn of the 20th century, just after Plessy v. Ferguson, and just as many Southern states were establishing repressive race laws. The second runs from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s—the peak of the civil-rights movement. In other words, the erection of Confederate monuments has been a way to perform cultural resistance to black equality.

[Miller192]

The demographics of Baltimore were vastly different when these statues went up.  You can't keep these statues up in predominantly black communities now.

 

I really can even figure out why Robert E Lee would be honored with a statue in Baltimore City.  

[mweb08]

The demographics of Baltimore were vastly different when these statues went up.  You can't keep these statues up in predominantly black communities now.

 

I really can even figure out why Robert E Lee would be honored with a statue in Baltimore City.  

 

They shouldn't be up anywhere IMO, but yes, it's worse in predominantly black communities.

 

Maryland was a border state that had many sympathizers to the Confederacy along with those that actually went and joined the Confederate Army. So while Maryland's history, and even Baltimore's history of racism doesn't match many others, especially to the south, it's still pretty prominent. 

[Miller192]

They shouldn't be up anywhere IMO, but yes, it's worse in predominantly black communities.

 

Maryland was a border state that had many sympathizers to the Confederacy along with those that actually went and joined the Confederate Army. So while Maryland's history, and even Baltimore's history of racism doesn't match many others, especially to the south, it's still pretty prominent. 

 

I agree with you.  I'm just trying to justify the "why now" question.

[bnickle]

That's being polite. It's just flat out wrong.

However, there are some states and teachers that do a disservice with their bias towards the confederacy. So if the point was that the way the Civil War is taught in some places should change, that would be more aligned with the logic behind getting rid of that statues.

All for more education on the Civil War and I think that would help many come to a fair conclusion on this issue. The key is educating yourself and coming to your own conclusions. You talk about teachers with a bias when they teach the CW and that applies to you as well. I'd tell anyone who listened to your lectures and anyone who listened to a teacher in South Carolina the same thing. Dont just accept what the "experts "say. They all have biases and slants. You're preaching to the choir in your school just like they are in their school.