Question to those who support/oppose removal of Confederate monuments.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Stokely

Platinum Member
Jun 5, 2017
2,224
2,994
136
By far, most of these statues were erected during the Jim Crow years. A smaller spike during the Civil Rights movement.

They weren't a celebration of rebels, they were just symbols needed at critical times to keep the uppity negroes down. They are nothing more than white supremacy propaganda.

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

So there's that. Also considering they were traitors, I'm all for bringing them down, or at least putting them all together into a "losing traitor national gallery" or something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aegeon and hal2kilo

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
I'm sure I don't need to detail either side of the debate about Confederate monuments recently. What I am curious on is people's opinion on the New York City Council's decision to designate a section of Rogers Avenue in Brooklyn as Jean-Jacques Dessalines boulevard.

For those unfamiliar with Dessalines he was the emperor of Haiti after they won their independence from France. One of the things he did was to order the murder of every remaining white man, woman and child on the island which resulted in the deaths of 3-5 thousand people.

New York has removed the few Confederate monuments they had after Gov. Cuomo ordered it.

Me. Put me down as against this. Curious what others think given that many who supported this view the 1804 Massacre as a legitimate response to the oppression suffered under the French.


https://www.city-journal.org/html/dessalines-boulevard-16086.html

Never heard of Jean-Jacques Dessalines but I don't think we should clutch pearls aghast at his early 19th century actions merely considering them from a 21st century perspective. If his acts were likewise condemned as barbarity in his own time then a city probably shouldn't be honoring him with a street named after him. That being said it's hard for me to care much about what some city I don't even live in chooses to do in some ceremonial act that doesn't mean much in the end.

By far, most of these statues were erected during the Jim Crow years. A smaller spike during the Civil Rights movement. They weren't a celebration of rebels, they were just symbols needed at critical times to keep the uppity negroes down. They are nothing more than white supremacy propaganda. .


Oddly enough those timeframes correspond roughly with the 50 and 100 year anniversaries of the Civil War. I think that may have more to do with the erection of the statues than putting them up to celebrate Jim Crow. If it was merely to "keep uppity negroes down" there would have been no reason to slow down building them after the round number anniversary milestone had passed. Unless you think folks just got tired of all that uppity negro suppression and needed to take a breather for a few decades until they could resume.

blog_confederate_monuments4.gif
 
Last edited:

Viper1j

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2018
4,264
3,840
136
The official answer to the US Civil is that the Confederate States never actually seceded from the Union because they did not have the right to do so. They attempted to, but failed, therefore the rebels were always American Citizens. The Confederacy was a failed rebellion, never it's own country.

Assuming that is correct, that still doesn't make them any less traitorous. So at the very least, every single commissioned Confederate officer should have faced a firing squad, not had a statue erected.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
I am all for residents of cities who don't want them removing monuments to Confederate traitors in way they see fit. I am also against naming streets after bad people in other countries. There are so many good people to name streets after and put up monuments to.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,541
16,325
146
You understand a man killing children as revenge for enslavement?

Moreover, as a fellow white man, you're able to put yourself in this guy's shoes and justify yourself doing the same thing?

My question to you is, do you understand what slavery really was?

Slave masters regularly murdered black people. Undesirable children were sold off, or killed. They had no regard whatsoever for black women and children.

Now, you've lived your whole life under that level of torture and oppression, plus, you have no education whitsover.

The only way to free yourself is to rise up and kill your masters. Kill all of them before they kill you.

And all of a fucking sudden you, an angry slave with no education whatsoever, is now supposed to be a kind, forgiving civil rights humanitarian?

Like I said. A stunning inability to put themselves in the shoes of others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Linux23

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,541
16,325
146
Enslavement justifies murdering women and children because they are white?

Tell me, what justified the kidnapping, enslavement, rape murder and torture of the black person in the first place?

So slaves, whose master had no respect for their women and children, are suddenly supposed to respect the women and children of the people who enslaves, raped murdered and tortured them?

Seriously?
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,880
1,550
126
Ignorance of what exactly? That it's morally wrong to kill innocent children?

My point in making the analogy wasn't to suggest that the actions of the two are identical in all ways. It's to point out that the same nonsense rationale was given by the Nazis for killing Jewish children that Linux gave for the Haitians to kill French children. He's wrong. Children do not automatically grow up to become oppressors because they are mostly products of their environment. The Nazis obviously believed otherwise, that their DNA ("blood" was the term they used) destined them to become villains. Maybe the Haitians believed that as well. It's wrong in either case, and the actions of both were morally repugnant.

I find it a little disturbing when people can't get behind opposing genocide, that they want to make distinctions to suggest that one mass slaughter of children is somehow better than another. The moment we succumb to that sort of reasoning is the moment we can say goodbye to whatever is left of our humanity.

The Alt-Right adds to its glorification mythology the Great Roman Empire. They gave us the gladiatorial games, among other "civilized" practices. How does the slave colony of Haiti compare to that? I'm not pleading ignorance on their behalf, I'm simply stating that you'd have to look at the culture (what was left of it after being pressed into slavery), and the cruelty inflicted on the slaves in that colony as opposed to (ugh!) the more humane treatment in the American colonies. There have been historical dramas produced about that era. I remember for instance the Marlon Brando 1969 film of "Burn!" which I recall particularly for it's cinematographic bleakness. Of course, it was "fiction," but it wasn't drawn from the Planet Melmac.

Would we condone it in any way? No. But the earth has been a killing field since long before the Great Romans. What about Castro's "Day of the Machine Gun?" At least consider how Castro grew up, and the conditions of Cubans in the countryside during the '40s and '50s. They say history might have been different if Castro had been recruited by an American baseball team. What would've happened had USC accepted Trump to their film school?

I suppose the British reader was shocked and stunned when Jonathan Swift suggested eating babies because of the Malthusian imperatives leaving "no room at the table." But that was satire.

Anyway, using historical analogs finds wide usage in political discussion, as if there were such a thing as anecdotal inference. Finding analogs in history for some sort of holier-than-thou moral comparison is useless. And, as I said, naming the street in New York was a local decision. What does it do for those residents, to have that street name? I don't know, don't entirely care, and don't presume to judge.

What unsettles me more is how some part of the electorate tolerates and coalesces itself with the extreme Right "Neo" groups who deny the Holocaust and elevate Hitler. Or for that matter, a Chief Executive reported to have kept "Mein Kampf" by his bedside as an "important reference." Having it on a bookshelf is one thing; taking it to bed every night is another. Hopefully, he never thought to read Goebbels' essays and notebooks -- he might have become more expert at the Great Lie than he is at the moment. But it's becoming more and more obvious that he's not a voracious reader.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,541
16,325
146
The Alt-Right adds to its glorification mythology the Great Roman Empire. They gave us the gladiatorial games, among other "civilized" practices. How does the slave colony of Haiti compare to that? I'm not pleading ignorance on their behalf, I'm simply stating that you'd have to look at the culture (what was left of it after being pressed into slavery), and the cruelty inflicted on the slaves in that colony as opposed to (ugh!) the more humane treatment in the American colonies. There have been historical dramas produced about that era. I remember for instance the Marlon Brando 1969 film of "Burn!" which I recall particularly for it's cinematographic bleakness. Of course, it was "fiction," but it wasn't drawn from the Planet Melmac.

Would we condone it in any way? No. But the earth has been a killing field since long before the Great Romans. What about Castro's "Day of the Machine Gun?" At least consider how Castro grew up, and the conditions of Cubans in the countryside during the '40s and '50s. They say history might have been different if Castro had been recruited by an American baseball team. What would've happened had USC accepted Trump to their film school?

I suppose the British reader was shocked and stunned when Jonathan Swift suggested eating babies because of the Malthusian imperatives leaving "no room at the table." But that was satire.

Anyway, using historical analogs finds wide usage in political discussion, as if there were such a thing as anecdotal inference. Finding analogs in history for some sort of holier-than-thou moral comparison is useless. And, as I said, naming the street in New York was a local decision. What does it do for those residents, to have that street name? I don't know, don't entirely care, and don't presume to judge.

What unsettles me more is how some part of the electorate tolerates and coalesces itself with the extreme Right "Neo" groups who deny the Holocaust and elevate Hitler. Or for that matter, a Chief Executive reported to have kept "Mein Kampf" by his bedside as an "important reference." Having it on a bookshelf is one thing; taking it to bed every night is another. Hopefully, he never thought to read Goebbels' essays and notebooks -- he might have become more expert at the Great Lie than he is at the moment. But it's becoming more and more obvious that he's not a voracious reader.

The sheer amazement here is that they are judging slaves who rose up and killed their masters for their inhumane treatment of women and children.

Let that sink in.

A complete ignorance of the generations of brutality and complete disregard for black women, children and lives in general. Yet the black folks are going to be judged for simply giving back what they got? No judgement whatsoever for the white slave masters. Nope. Just those black folks.

That attitude right there is a sign of deep seated racism that makes a white man unable to ever put himself in the shoes of a black man who just rose from generations of slavery, rape, murder and the worst inhumanity man has ever practiced.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
My question to you is, do you understand what slavery really was?

Slave masters regularly murdered black people. Undesirable children were sold off, or killed. They had no regard whatsoever for black women and children.

Now, you've lived your whole life under that level of torture and oppression, plus, you have no education whitsover.

The only way to free yourself is to rise up and kill your masters. Kill all of them before they kill you.

And all of a fucking sudden you, an angry slave with no education whatsoever, is now supposed to be a kind, forgiving civil rights humanitarian?

Like I said. A stunning inability to put themselves in the shoes of others.

You would kill children, and justify yourself if you did, if you were in their shoes, correct? Just yes or no.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Tell me, what justified the kidnapping, enslavement, rape murder and torture of the black person in the first place?

Nothing. Nothing at all. But by your logic it can be justified by the perpetrator if he cites prior harm to himself as the impetus of his evil actions.

I mean, what do you think real evil looks like? Do you suppose it's guys with forked tongues and pitchforks going about murdering people while cackling and laughing about how much they love being evil?

Or is it more likely that evil is hardly ever so overtly displayed? Most evil acts occur because of giving way to human instinct and passion that each of us have, and then the evil-doers seek to justify themselves because they only did what was "natural", or that their motive was "understandable."

Do you think slavers were like the devils in the first example, reveling in their evil deeds? Or is it more likely they justified it on grounds of "I was just doing my job," or "The negroes are better off under white rule than their own" or some other such excuse for their actions, just as you are doing now for Dessalines? What other barbaric acts can be justified by this type of reasoning? If you're already justifying child-murder, I'm uneasy to find out.

The murdered children don't come back to life because you had understandable motives.
 
Last edited:

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,880
1,550
126
The sheer amazement here is that they are judging slaves who rose up and killed their masters for their inhumane treatment of women and children.

Let that sink in.

A complete ignorance of the generations of brutality and complete disregard for black women, children and lives in general. Yet the black folks are going to be judged for simply giving back what they got? No judgement whatsoever for the white slave masters. Nope. Just those black folks.

That attitude right there is a sign of deep seated racism that makes a white man unable to ever put himself in the shoes of a black man who just rose from generations of slavery, rape, murder and the worst inhumanity man has ever practiced.

I applaud your passion. I agree in every respect. But like I said, making these historical analogies from a point of moral superiority seems to go hand in hand with the "American exceptionalism" myth, with it's pillars of Greatness -- it's useless. And again -- if a local community decides to give a street a name, what's the point of picking this as a point of contention? And contention about what?

The historical figure memorialized in the street name would've been a national hero no matter what -- taking a brutal slave colony to something better.

Also, someone else mentioned Che Guevara as a parallel to Kim Jong Un. There's no comparison. Guevara was driven by a commitment to an Idea. He could've had a prosperous life as an Argentinian doctor, if I'm not mistaken. He was captured by Felix Rodriguez the CIA operative, and they executed Guevara. He was assisting insurgents in Bolivia. Kim is just a sociopath and a pampered narcissist, in a regime which is fundamentally criminal. Ask the Chinese about their methamphetamine problem in the northern provinces.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,541
16,325
146
Nothing. Nothing at all. But by your logic it can be justified by the perpetrator if he cites prior harm to himself as the impetus of his evil actions.

I mean, what do you think real evil looks like? Do you suppose it's guys with forked tongues and pitchforks going about murdering people while cackling and laughing about how much they love being evil?

Or is it more likely that evil is hardly ever so overtly displayed? Most evil acts occur because of giving way to human instinct and passion that each of us have, and then the evil-doers seek to justify themselves because they only did what was "natural", or that their motive was "understandable."

Do you think slavers were like the devils in the first example, reveling in their evil deeds? Or is it more likely they justified it on grounds of "I was just doing my job," or "The negroes are better off under white rule than their own" or some other such excuse for their actions, just as you are doing now for Dessalines? What other barbaric acts can be justified by this type of reasoning? If you're already justifying child-murder, I'm uneasy to find out.

The murdered children don't come back to life because you had understandable motives.

So let me get this straight.

The white man enslaves, rapes and murders the black man for centuries. Numbers of casualties ranging in the millions are killed, raped and enslaved. No regard whatsoever was given for black women and children. They were dehumanized, tortured, lived in complete bondage, refused families, had their children stolen or murdered in front of them, treated as animals and given no education whatsoever.

No education whatsoever. No ideology of "human rights." The only morality they understand is that of a whipped slave in bondage and that their own lives had zero value, only their work product.

Those slaves rise up and kill a few thousand whites in retribution with the exact same disregard for women and children the white man showed them.

And in your universe, the black guys are the bad guys.

Do I have this correct???
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,880
1,550
126
So let me get this straight.

The white man enslaves, rapes and murders the black man for centuries. Numbers of casualties ranging in the millions are killed, raped and enslaved. No regard whatsoever was given for black women and children. They were dehumanized, tortured, lived in complete bondage, refused families, had their children stolen or murdered in front of them, treated as animals and given no education whatsoever,

Those slaves rise up and kill a few thousand whites in retribution with the exact same disregard for women and children the white man showed them.

And in your universe, the black guys are the bad guys.

Do I have this correct???

We still argue today about the usefulness of dropping FATMAN and LITTLE BOY. All of those men in the 509th Atom Bomb Squadron -- a majority became alcoholics. Of course, "that was war." But if you want to talk about women and children, there's another nearly useless historical analogy.

Nobody asked me, in the wake of Red State political behavior, what I might have done if Lincoln's plan for the South had not persisted. To cloak my atrocities in generality, Military Reconstructions would've lasted 100 years. Just an inclination I might have . . .
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
My question to you is, do you understand what slavery really was?

Slave masters regularly murdered black people. Undesirable children were sold off, or killed. They had no regard whatsoever for black women and children.

Now, you've lived your whole life under that level of torture and oppression, plus, you have no education whitsover.

The only way to free yourself is to rise up and kill your masters. Kill all of them before they kill you.

And all of a fucking sudden you, an angry slave with no education whatsoever, is now supposed to be a kind, forgiving civil rights humanitarian?

Like I said. A stunning inability to put themselves in the shoes of others.

And slaves were sold by other black people. I know that doesn't fit with your racially bias narrative of "whiteys are the evil ones" but at least present all the facts instead of just the ones you agree with douche.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,244
10,818
136
I didn't read the whole thread, but...

To me, the big issue with Confederate Statues is they weren't built to honor the soldiers or any of the other BS claims, they were built as a message to black people. The statues and namings were done out of pure racism and hatred. I wouldn't support the removal of Statues installed say before 1900, but the vast majority were put up in the 20s and 50-60s due to big ramp ups in the KKK and push back on civil rights.

This street name is different. I don't think anyone thinks it is done to intimidate white people to stay in their place. Every historical figure is flawed, especially when held to modern standards. I don't know anything about this specific guy, but I do know that not only were the confederate "heros" deeply flawed humans, they were also on the wrong side of history and took up arms against their own country, which resulted in over 600K deaths.
 
  • Like
Reactions: darkswordsman17

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,541
16,325
146
And slaves were sold by other black people. I know that doesn't fit with your racially bias narrative of "whiteys are the evil ones" but at least present all the facts instead of just the ones you agree with douche.

Fact: Not a single slave involved in the Haitian revolution was sold by another black nor had any memory of any such thing.

I know that narrative helps ease the guilt of whites enslaving blacks. But it is, for the most part, bullshit and has no relevance on this topic whatsoever.

The only douche here is you. A racist douche trying to equivacate slavery.

Meanwhile if you're going to trot out bullshit about slavery, at least take the time to see how fucking stupid you look:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._and_irrelevancies_people_trot_out_about.html
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BUTCH1

Linux23

Lifer
Apr 9, 2000
11,333
705
126
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EO3Fxe4mDP4

If folks have about 8 minutes of free time, then watch this. When blacks try to do good, create their own economy and wealth, the racists come out in full force and destroy what probably took a lifetime to achieve.

Not all white people are racist but being complacent while another race is being pillaged and exterminated is another thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adeeaPL3XHQ
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amused

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,541
16,325
146
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EO3Fxe4mDP4

If folks have about 8 minutes of free time, then watch this. When blacks try to do good, create their own economy and wealth, the racists come out in full force and destroy what probably took a lifetime to achieve.

Not all white people are racist but being complacent while another race is being pillaged and exterminated is another thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adeeaPL3XHQ

Racists don't care. All they care about is ignoring their own racism while depicting all the resentment their racism causes as "minorities being racist against them."

Poor racist victims.

5Zc602p0cuYZDDY19ggcfgG6WfHnpCRoje8RJcPmOcuU0J_q4XYr6LAImDwBxV4i.png
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
So what makes the Columbus statue any more worthy than any confederate statue?

"
Mayor de Blasio and Council Speaker Melissa Mark Viverito have come under a firestorm of criticism for mulling the removal of a Christopher Columbus statues — including the 76-foot structure in Columbus Square — as part of a review of offensive monuments.

The mayor has backtracked following the outcry.

“There’s no plan to remove the Columbus statue,” said de Blasio spokesman Eric Phillips.

While the Italian explorer is revered for discovering the New World, Columbus’ detractors said he mistreated and enslaved native Caribbean populations and doesn’t deserve to be extolled."



https://nypost.com/2017/09/04/cuomo-defends-christopher-columbus-statue/

https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2017/09/04/cuomo-columbus-circle-statue/
Gov. Cuomo Says Columbus Statue Is About Honoring Italian-American Heritage

Typical elite New York liberals, do as I say not as I do.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,643
50,877
136
So what makes the Columbus statue any more worthy than any confederate statue?

"
Mayor de Blasio and Council Speaker Melissa Mark Viverito have come under a firestorm of criticism for mulling the removal of a Christopher Columbus statues — including the 76-foot structure in Columbus Square — as part of a review of offensive monuments.

The mayor has backtracked following the outcry.

“There’s no plan to remove the Columbus statue,” said de Blasio spokesman Eric Phillips.

While the Italian explorer is revered for discovering the New World, Columbus’ detractors said he mistreated and enslaved native Caribbean populations and doesn’t deserve to be extolled."

https://nypost.com/2017/09/04/cuomo-defends-christopher-columbus-statue/

https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2017/09/04/cuomo-columbus-circle-statue/
Gov. Cuomo Says Columbus Statue Is About Honoring Italian-American Heritage

Typical elite New York liberals, do as I say not as I do.

Hint for you, special guy - the people freaking out over removing statues of Columbus aren't liberals.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
So what makes the Columbus statue any more worthy than any confederate statue?

"
Mayor de Blasio and Council Speaker Melissa Mark Viverito have come under a firestorm of criticism for mulling the removal of a Christopher Columbus statues — including the 76-foot structure in Columbus Square — as part of a review of offensive monuments.

The mayor has backtracked following the outcry.

“There’s no plan to remove the Columbus statue,” said de Blasio spokesman Eric Phillips.

While the Italian explorer is revered for discovering the New World, Columbus’ detractors said he mistreated and enslaved native Caribbean populations and doesn’t deserve to be extolled."



https://nypost.com/2017/09/04/cuomo-defends-christopher-columbus-statue/

https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2017/09/04/cuomo-columbus-circle-statue/
Gov. Cuomo Says Columbus Statue Is About Honoring Italian-American Heritage

Typical elite New York liberals, do as I say not as I do.


The reason we have statues of Columbus, Jefferson, Washington & so forth isn't because they fought for the Confederacy to defend slavery. That can't be said for Lee, Davis, Forrest & the other heroes of White Supremacy. It's the only claim to fame the latter have.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,225
10,878
136
Fact: Not a single slave involved in the Haitian revolution was sold by another black nor had any memory of any such thing.

I know that narrative helps ease the guilt of whites enslaving blacks. But it is, for the most part, bullshit and has no relevance on this topic whatsoever.

The only douche here is you. A racist douche trying to equivacate slavery.

Meanwhile if you're going to trot out bullshit about slavery, at least take the time to see how fucking stupid you look:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._and_irrelevancies_people_trot_out_about.html
That's the African end of the deal. The white slave merchants got them from other black people that enslaved other black people in Africa. It does not absolve the white slave merchants of anything. Hey let's do some more whataboutism since that seems to be important. How about that native americans kept fellow native americans as slaves. Whatabout.................