What statues need to go

[poorpete]

I think public, government-run areas should not have monuments exalting white supremacy. I personally think memorials to Confederate soldiers are ok, but not if the wording of the memorial defends their cause. Also ones for Lee at places it makes sense are ok... Eg. Not Baltimore nor any college he didn't go to nor any stained glass memorialization.

But when a white supremacists sympathizing president says who's next: Washington, Jefferson, Columbus... I admit, I'm torn on these. Unlike Lee, these are not traitors to the union, but they were supremacists (Columbus most so). I'm not entirely shocked that the de-heroing of Washington and Jefferson is happening now.

If the only "punishment" for the majority of white voters guilty of knowingly voting for a racist in our modern post-Obama era, is the dethroning of complicated historical figures, I'll take it.

[Zen]

I don't see any reason for Washington and Jefferson to be included in this at all. In my opinion, this is ENTIRELY about the things that were done POST Civil War by people who were trying to assert the supremacy of whites in either the Jim Crow or Civil Rights eras. Anything that is a battlefield monument is fine. Those are historical sites. History happened. We need to recognize it and learn from it. The glorification and re-branding of the Civil War as being about "States Rights" as opposed to the preservation of their "Peculiar Institution" and the entire "Southern Pride" concept that many of the people arguing against the removal of the statues use is what needs to stop. (despite the fact that these same people were, only a couple of months ago, mocking the concept of "Gay Pride" during Pride Month and posting things about "When is Straight Pride month? When do we get to have "White Pride" month? Oh the irony...)

Yes, many of the southern politicians who were prominent in the founding of our country were slave owners. That isn't what this is about. The monuments to those individuals were NOT put up in an attempt to disenfranchise black people. They were put up to honor their very real contributions to the founding of this nation. They were not perfect. No one is perfect. Gandhi and MLK Jr. had their flaws as well. That doesn't mean we should NOT honor them for what they did that was right. The key is that these statues that people want taken down were NOT put up to honor men who did great things for our country or who did great things for humanity. They did the wrong thing for the wrong reasons and they were NOT the people who won, so therefore their version of history should NOT be the one that gets to hold sway. That's how history works, you win, you get to tell people what happened. Sorry, it isn't what happened that matters.

[Kyle]

We (meaning my family) haven't celebrated Columbus in a decade- we don't think he's a hero.

There's a difference between why we are memorializing people. Confederate statues are overwhelmingly put up as an intimidation measure against minorities. Many have written on this recently more than I have, so I won't belabor the point. But the long and short is that most of these statues when up in the 1920s in response to Jim Crow laws and the 1960s in response to civil rights.

The statues of Washington and Jefferson are erected to memorialize our founding fathers. It's a show of patriotism. I think there's a distinct difference there.

The statues to Columbus were erected to memorialize a man for something that doesn't deserve to be memorialized any more.

But let's be clear- I could give less of a shit about these. If society comes to the conclusion that they're offensive- then take them down. If society concludes that the names of cities are offensive, then change them. Who cares. History has recorded all this. They're statues. They're names. Who gives a shit?

[Tahlvin]

For the Civil War ones, the memorials to fallen soldiers should stay. Many of the were ones that went up right after the war, prior to 1900, where they were memorializing lost comrades rather than the cause they fought for. Ones honoring Confederate leadership, military or civilian, especially those raised after 1900, during the height of Jim Crow era, and that were raised to intentionally intimidate minorities, should go, with few exceptions. For example, statues of the generals at major battlefields would be appropriate, because they are in their historical context and can be discussed as such.

With Washington and Jefferson, I read an article implying that at least with them, in comparison with the Confederate generals, at least the discussion can begin with something other than slavery, such as their contributions drafting the Declaration, or setting an example of how to step away from a position of power. So I'm in favor of many of those statues remaining for the time being, and having a discussion down the road about how to properly address their legacies.

I think a discussion on Columbus is long overdue, and I think much of his veneration should be scaled back. There needs to be much more education at-large about his treatment of the native peoples. But also, it's pretty well accepted now that there were other Europeans who visited North America prior to his voyages. Keep a few statues around to commemorate the man who helped it "stay found," perhaps at his departure and landing spots or other key locations from his voyages, but remove many others.

[bralbovsky]

So, as far as I'm concerned, 'down with Columbus.' Sadly, for Italian communities, he's sort of the guy. Ignorance being bliss, after all. Places like Rome, Syracuse, and a host of immigrant destinations have him up there and should really come up with a local personality that actually did something for their communities. Fiorello?

[poorpete]

Aside, I'd really like to replace Columbus Day with Immigration Day, celebrating Native Americans travelling from Siberia, Explorers like Columbus, Ellis Island, the Statue of Liberty, and honoring those forced here on slave ships via the international slave trade.

So, our takeaway is less who the status are of or where they are, but why they were erected?

[Tahlvin]

A combination of why they were put up, and what they currently represent. Yes, a statue of Columbus may have been put up a couple hundred years ago for what people thought was a good reason and for a good person, but that's changed. Or a memorial to Confederate dead that I would normally have no issue with, I might have an issue with if that specific memorial became something that is celebrated by white supremacists, so perhaps that memorial needs to be relocated or otherwise addressed to remove the particular hate appeal. BUt in general, the why for the statue does matter.

[Phoebe]

I favor letting it happen organically - people decide what they want to honor and what they don't, and if they feel like a statue has become such an offensive symbol that it has to go, well, they will let it go. Every day I see a statue that offends me on a minor level and I think of all the hilarious Banksy-inspired things I could do to that dumb thing, but I like to keep my paycheck coming. Someday.

[El Jefe]

Letting it happen organically only works when you're not dealing with the entrenched power structures found regarding the particular batch of statues often being discussed. Many of these places have strong attempts to get them removed dating back to the late '70s, with little to no success, largely due to local and state level interference (either from governmental entities and/or private groups).

[Tahlvin]

If there is societal consensus, then by all means, take them down no matter what the reason. But the big issue now is the lack of complete societal consensus. Yes, there is a big portion of society that wants to remove the Confederate monuments, and it's definitely trending that direction, but there's still a large enough part of white society that doesn't want to get rid of them yet, because they haven't been awakened to the true meaning of those monuments, or still haven't given up the Lost Cause mythology, and I don't think some of them will give up any time soon. So for this specific set of circumstances, I think the issue needs to be forced, and they need to be removed.

[Phoebe]

I'm talking about what statues "need to go", not about how to make them go. If most people want them gone, and the reason they're not gone is that some white supremacist motherfuckers in the state government are preventing a municipality from taking down their own statue, as I gather is indeed happening in places, then the statues need to go already.

[Kyle]

[Bonefish]

[Mike]

I never knew Jubal Early was anything but a bounty hunter.

Weird.

[Bonefish]

Are you... are you fucking with me? Like, you didn't know who Jubal Early was before watching Firefly?

This is what irks me about this whole damn conversation(not really against you, per say, but in general. I've had this discussion a lot): the sheer amount of ignorance of the history involved. Everyone knows who Lee is, so he's the poster boy. And you get two narratives with him: Either he was the Saint of the South, or he was the Satan of the South. And honestly, he was neither. He was a conflicted and complicated man, and his name and legacy have been abused by both sides of this debate for going on 130 years or so. Ever since he died, he's been used as a fetish, a totem, to either cannonize the Lost Cause or to demonize the Treacherous South.

It's something me and a friend were discussing the other day: our southern history and heritage has been so heavily redacted that we don't know what the hell to believe. We just get this constant Lost Cause bullshit drummed into us from our childhood, and for most of us, we never question it. We don't dig any deeper than the white wash over the monuments, and we remain ignorant of the truth. And generally speaking, the reaction is either to embrace the Lost Cause, or to thoroughly turn our back on our southern heritage in shame. Which is absolutely ridiculous.

Longstreet and Mahone became villains in the south because of their support of reconstruction and equality after the war. But no one from the north will defend them, because they were traitors. Thomas was ignored in his lifetime, and even today, is a poorly known figure. Because he was a Traitor to Virginia, but too southern for the North to celebrate.

Beddford Forrest founded the goddamned Klan, and yet... no one ever mentions him. Davis and Early were unreconstructed through-out their lives, and were instrumental in the disfigurement of southern history, and... crickets chirp when they are mentioned.

But everyone knows who Lee was. Sorta.

[Mike]

[poorpete]

Watched Ken Burns' Civil War way back when, and he'd try to straddle both sides, and it's rather disgusting. Spent half of it firmly believing Shelby Foote's view of Lee as a slavery-hating Virginia-lover, but Burns confuses thing when he adds Lee quotes that are clearly white supremacist in nature. Then like: ohhh, not even everyone contributing here are in agreement 150 years on. Wonder how it holds up today.

Lee was best summed up by Grant: "I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse."

Nathan Bedford Forest was so awful, a pre war slave trafficker, a war criminal during the conflict, and a terrorist after.

[Bonefish]

I find virtually nothing redeemable about Forrest. He may have been the best cavalry commander of the war, and his maxims are still quoted today. But seriously, fuck that guy.