It appears many want to erase the past

SonOfDaedalus said:

How does that explain slavery in other British and other European colonies? How does that explain slavery in other states? Your story is not significant to the history of slavery. Without that African man (if that story is even true) there would still be slavery in Virginia.

Lee and the confederacy fought to preserve slavery. His troops capture free Blacks and sent them into slavery. Lee is no hero.

Lee was a fascinating figure and brilliant military man. He can be studied but he doesn't deserve a statue. Surely, it's understandable that African Americans might take offense to calling Lee a hero.

These statues were allowed to appease the wounded whites in the South. Nobody gave a damn how Blacks in the South felt about those statues. Time are different now. Some do care how Blacks feel about the awful history of slavery.

Some Whites have the ability to put themselves in Black shoes and can understand why Blacks would have a problem with confederate symbols and statues. But some Whites can't think beyond their own feelings.

Click to expand...

Re: Anthony Johnson:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

To single out the American slave experience as worse than slavery in other times and places is wrong. The conditions under which slaves lived in Roman times or Assyrian times were much worse and much more brutal.

Click to expand...

More brutal than transporting slaves over the Atlantic like this?



Anyway, it's pointless to try and compare different forms of brutality. American slavery was pretty brutal.

But the issue with Lee is not that he owned slaves. The issue is he fought for slavery when he fought for the confederacy. You can't honor both Lincoln and Lee. There's no honor in secession for the sake of slavery.

And it's rather insensitive to African Americans whose ancestors were rounded up and captured by Confederate soldiers.

We shouldn't erase history but maybe it's good that we can admit the sins of the past and rethink who our heroes should be. I think today we're more honest about history and the flaws of our heroes.

The history of Anthony Johnson does not empower, enrich, or ennoble the history of Robert E. Lee, slavery, the CSA, or the South.

Remove all statutes to public museums in the name of truth, justice, and the American Way.

SonOfDeadlus:

The ships you picture are no different from the "hulks" in which my Scottish ancestors were transported to the Americas and further afield for resisting land enclosure in Scotland. They were hunted down with bounties on their heads, forced into long terms of indentured servitude, shipped around the world and abused simply for being less profitable to greedy land owners than sheep. The ships which you picture and their over crowding are also reminiscent of the hulks in which American rebels were imprisoned by the British during the American War of Independence. This cruelty was universal and not limited to just slaves. Tearing down statues and disappering monuments doesn't change history, it just hides the unpopular bits. A fig-leaf for the past better to confront and deal with it than hide it and try to forget it.

As to being traitors and defending slavery, you need look no further than George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Both betrayed their original citizenship, both owned slaves and both defended slavery as an institution in order to realize independence and an American Confederation. That confederation morphed from a voluntary confederation into a forcibly imposed union over an eighty year period, so Lee and many other Confederates believed they were within their rights to resist the imposition of a mandatory Union to supplant a voluntary confederation. There were many reasons for the American Civil War such as state's rights, free trade, embargoes and slavery. But the Union did not move to reinforce and resupply Fort Sumpter because of slavery. This was done to maintain the cotton embargo on the South which served the interests of Northern mill owners who did not want to see Southern cotton go cheaply to their competitors in Britain and Canada. So throwing around the word traitor in regards to the Confederate leadership is based on a rather selective use of historical fact. They are only traitors because they lost, as per the British Common Law principle of the Right of Rebellion which the Americans retained until 1869.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

JamesBY said:

The history of Anthony Johnson does not empower, enrich, or ennoble the history of Robert E. Lee, slavery, the CSA, or the South.

Remove all statutes to public museums in the name of truth, justice, and the American Way.

Click to expand...

JamesBy:

What truth is served by squirrelling away the monuments of the past? What justice is served by hiding the crimes of the past from new generations' eyes? And finally whose "American Way" are you invoking? There is no "American Way". That's jingoism and bandwagoning, not history or law. Respectfully, I say to you that life is never so simple as the the three-step method to social harmony which you seem to prescribe here. America must confront and deal with its endemic racism rather than sweeping it under the carpet once again. Racism today is much wider than just prejudice and bigotry towards African Americans alone. Today indigenous peoples, Latinos, Asians, Arabs and many others are targets. So deal with the whole spectrum of racism and use these monuments as tangible foci to teach the errors and crimes of the past in order to make a more perfect union. The sculptors or casters made the monuments but we today can create new meanings for these effigies of the past. Change these statues into teaching tools and confront American History's triumphs and failures, warts and all, until all Americans can accept "an American Way" and be accepted by "an American Way" as equals in the Grand American Experiment.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Quote Originally Posted by JamesBY View Post
The history of Anthony Johnson does not empower, enrich, or ennoble the history of Robert E. Lee, slavery, the CSA, or the South.

Remove all statutes to public museums in the name of truth, justice, and the American Way.

Evilroddy said:

JamesBy:

What truth is served by squirrelling away the monuments of the past? What justice is served by hiding the crimes of the past from new generations' eyes? And finally whose "American Way" are you invoking? There is no "American Way". That's jingoism and bandwagoning, not history or law. Respectfully, I say to you that life is never so simple as the the three-step method to social harmony which you seem to prescribe here. America must confront and deal with its endemic racism rather than sweeping it under the carpet once again. Racism today is much wider than just prejudice and bigotry towards African Americans alone. Today indigenous peoples, Latinos, Asians, Arabs and many others are targets. So deal with the whole spectrum of racism and use these monuments as tangible foci to teach the errors and crimes of the past in order to make a more perfect union. The sculptors or casters made the monuments but we today can create new meanings for these effigies of the past. Change these statues into teaching tools and confront American History's triumphs and failures, warts and all, until all Americans can accept "an American Way" and be accepted by "an American Way" as equals in the Grand American Experiment.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

Thank you. The statues can be, and hopefully will be changed, to teaching tools in our public museums in concert with public schools. What a great idea!

SonOfDeadalus:

Apologies for mispelling Fort Sumter. I do it all the time. I always slip in a "p" and I don't know why. You'd think i'd have learned by now. Sheesh, I'm such a knuckle head!

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

I'm not trying to diminish the inhumanity of human chattel and slavery.

Click to expand...

Sure seems that way.

Long before black Africans began to flow from Africa to the New World, First Nations peoples like the Beothuk of Eastern Canada were being captured...

Click to expand...

So what? That doesn't change anything about the discussion.

Another example is the question of who discovered America?

Click to expand...

How about... the indigenous peoples, that probably migrated to the Americas around 12,000 years ago? Oh, I forgot. You're trying to correct the record. Do continue.

Strong archeological evidence suggests that about 7,000 years ago Maritime Archaic North American indigenous peoples discovered Europe and taught the people there a burial technique called today "red-ocher burial". So the very questions we ask ourselves are derived from a selective history which we have chosen to believe.

Click to expand...

There was a Norse community in Greenland from roughly 900-1400 CE, which had small outposts on North America. After that, it was Columbus who connected Europe and the Americas.

Possible contact by North American tribes and Europe some time around 5000 BCE is fascinating, but does not actually change the impact of Columbus' contact with the New World, and what that contact unleashed.

Finally, you are making value judgements from the 21st Century and applying them to people and institutions of the 17th to 19th centuries.

Click to expand...

Guess what? Abolitionists were passing negative moral judgment on slavery at that time as well. They actively opposed slavery, and undertook dangerous efforts to free slaves. Pennsylvania already had a history of anti-slavery efforts by the late 18th century.

By the way, what's the expiration on the statute of limitation on moral judgments? How about the 1960s? Should we refrain from passing judgment on Bull Connor and George Wallace, because "the ethos has changed"? World War II started nearly 80 years ago; is it wrong to judge the Nazis for their role in the Holocaust, because so many years have passed? Should we refrain from commenting on child labor in the early 20th century, because it was 100 years ago? What's the expiration date here?

Did I mention that it sounds like you're being an apologist for the Confederacy and southern slave owners?

In broad character is this any different from the exploitation of young women and men by the pornography industriy of today?

Click to expand...

So we can't make comparative judgments, but we can? Sweet

Believe it or not, many participants in the pornography industry do consent. So, let's talk about human trafficking, whose participants do not consent.

The big difference between American chattel slavery, and today's human trafficking, should be obvious. The latter is an illegal trade, outlawed and reviled around the world, and is driven far underground. When the authorities find the victims, they free them. The former was a legally sanctioned system, backed by the full power of the state, in which large numbers of people endorsed and benefitted from slavery. States even aided in the attempt to claw escaped slaves back into bondage.

Did I mention that it sure sounds like you're being an apologist for the Confederacy and southern slave owners?

To single out the American slave experience as worse than slavery in other times and places is wrong.

Click to expand...

Wow. Just... wow.

It is completely and totally unnecessary to characterize American slavery as "better" or "worse" than any other historical systems of slavery. Even if we can make the case that Roman slavery was worse, that in no way exculpates ANY element of the American system, or reduces its own terrors.

Sorry, but you're not fooling anyone with your disclaimers. Putting American slavery "into perspective" ultimately doesn't disprove the mainstream view that American slavery was a moral failure of epic proportions; that it ranged from dehumanizing to horrifying for the slaves; that the Confederacy fought to continue that disastrous institution; that many in the US perpetuated many of its worst aspects, with decades of segregation and abuse.

The people who are whitewashing the history are those who defend the Confederacy; those who refuse to recognize that the Confederate states fought to preserve slavery; those who deny the harmful legacy, which is causing harm even as I type.

Do you plan to spend any time telling those individuals that their interpretation of history is missing something? Yes? No?

Bucky said:

The majority of those that signed the Declaration of Independence were slave holders. Many on the left want to tear down and vandalize status of Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln.



Leftist Activists Demand New York Museum Take Down Statue of ?Racist? Theodore Roosevelt | Daily Wire



Lincoln Memorial vandalised with profanity in Washington DC - BBC News

Many on the left want to tear down Mount Rushmore. I simply do not understand this hatred festering for one's own country. Do people realize that Indians before colonization held slaves?

We are going down a very dangerous road.

Click to expand...

Wait! What....

How did someone paint Graffiti on Lincoln memorial all of the sudden equate to "Many on the Left want to Tear Down Mount Rushmore? No mention of many of the left in your BBC link....Are we using Alternative Facts again????

And for the love god..learn what the equal sign means...equating someone who wanted to fight of the idea of breaking the union so that a group of people can own slave and subjugate an entire race for their profit...is not equal being an Slave owner

Diving Mullah

Evilroddy said:

SonOfDeadlus:

The ships you picture are no different from the "hulks" in which my Scottish ancestors were transported to the Americas and further afield for resisting land enclosure in Scotland.

Click to expand...

Errr... yeah, it is. For starters, around 2.5 million Africans died in the Middle Passage. Death rates were nowhere near that high for European migrants -- most of whom voluntarily came to the New World.

They were hunted down with bounties on their heads, forced into long terms of indentured servitude, shipped around the world and abused simply for being less profitable to greedy land owners than sheep.

Click to expand...

Yeah... no. That's largely a denialist myth. Indentured servitude was voluntary and temporary (5-10 years). Few Europeans were kidnapped and forced into indentured servitude.

The ships which you picture and their over crowding are also reminiscent of the hulks in which American rebels were imprisoned by the British during the American War of Independence.

Click to expand...

Yes, British treatment of captured soldiers was horrendous. You do understand that doesn't excuse any of the abuses of the Middle Passage, right? Right...?

As to being traitors and defending slavery, you need look no further than George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Both betrayed their original citizenship, both owned slaves and both defended slavery as an institution in order to realize independence and an American Confederation....

Click to expand...

Yes, and?

Both betrayed their principles when it came to the issue of slavery. Their contemporaries and friends (or rivals...) such as Hamilton and Jay were members of the Manumission Society. Washington's friends told him that his ownership of slaves would be a black mark on his legacy.

That confederation morphed from a voluntary confederation into a forcibly imposed union over an eighty year period, so Lee and many other Confederates believed they were within their rights to resist the imposition of a mandatory Union to supplant a voluntary confederation.

Click to expand...

What the ****.

The Articles of Confederation were a failure. They were validly replaced by the ratification of the Constitution of the United States, a perpetual union that had no mechanism for states to depart. All 13 original states ratified the Constitution by 1790.

Oh, and as a reminder: States are not people, and do not have "rights." They did not have the power to secede, and failed to do so by force.

There were many reasons for the American Civil War such as state's rights, free trade, embargoes and slavery. But the Union did not move to reinforce and resupply Fort Sumpter because of slavery....

Click to expand...

The Confederate states seceded because of slavery. All you have to do is read their own statements of secession.

They were proud to fight for slavery. Why do you feel the need to whitewash them?

Bucky said:

The majority of those that signed the Declaration of Independence were slave holders. Many on the left want to tear down and vandalize status of Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln.



Leftist Activists Demand New York Museum Take Down Statue of ?Racist? Theodore Roosevelt | Daily Wire



Lincoln Memorial vandalised with profanity in Washington DC - BBC News

Many on the left want to tear down Mount Rushmore. I simply do not understand this hatred festering for one's own country. Do people realize that Indians before colonization held slaves?

We are going down a very dangerous road.

Click to expand...

There is no reason to have monuments to a slaveocracy which murdered thousands of American soldiers and sailors. Literally zero.

The idea that removing monuments to the Confederacy will "erase history" is a hilarious joke. If that was true, nobody in Eastern Europe would know who Stalin was.

Visbek:

Sure seems that way.

Click to expand...

The topic of the thread is erasing the past. My comments were and are in regard to that. I am not apologizing for nor minimizing the tragedy of American slavery despite what you may surmise. In case you're unclear American slavery was a monstrous historical crime and a wicked institution.

So what? That doesn't change anything about the discussion.

Click to expand...

The discussion is about changing History and thus the roots of Portuguese slavery is germane to this discussion as it informs the narrow focus of what should be a wider understanding of the cruel institution of slavery.

How about... the indigenous peoples, that probably migrated to the Americas around 12,000 years ago? Oh, I forgot. You're trying to correct the record. Do continue.

Click to expand...

Yes, due to time constraints and not wanting to belabour the point I left out Asian, African and Solutrean discoveries of America. The point was that an incorrect appreciation of history skews even the questions we ask about history.

Possible contact by North American tribes and Europe some time around 5000 BCE is fascinating, but does not actually change the impact of Columbus' contact with the New World, and what that contact unleashed.

Click to expand...

The issue is not the impact of Columbian discover and colonization but of the distortion of history. There are cave paintings in South America which seem to show small Asian-like peoples fighting and killing larger dark skinned peoples and some of the oldest remains discovered in Brazil seem to be of African origin. So long before Columbus a paleolithic genocide may have occurred in South America. My point is that these cycles of violence, exploitation and genocide are endemic to history and to human nature.

Guess what? Abolitionists were passing negative moral judgment on slavery at that time as well. They actively opposed slavery, and undertook dangerous efforts to free slaves. Pennsylvania already had a history of anti-slavery efforts by the late 18th century.

By the way, what's the expiration on the statute of limitation on moral judgments? How about the 1960s? Should we refrain from passing judgment on Bull Connor and George Wallace, because "the ethos has changed"? World War II started nearly 80 years ago; is it wrong to judge the Nazis for their role in the Holocaust, because so many years have passed? Should we refrain from commenting on child labor in the early 20th century, because it was 100 years ago? What's the expiration date here?

Click to expand...

Yes there was strong and growing resistance to slavery from the get go but it did not reach critical mass until the mid 18th Century. While entirely valid it was not able to overcome the social and economic drivers which maintained this cruel institution until the mid 18th Century when the British finally abandoned it in favour of indenture. We in Canada supported and welcomed many of the slaves removed from the US and while there was prejudice and racism here to we tried to make a better life for US slaves in Nova Scotia, Acadia/ New Brunswick and Quebec/ The United Province of Canada.

The statute of limitations on even the most heinous crimes is when a person dies and ceases to have legal rights and responsibilities. If you can find a Nazi still alive today and make a good case for punishment then that Nazi should be punished. But once dead their crimes are beyond our censure. I don't think anyone should refrain from commenting on the atrocities, crimes and injustices of the past. So attack child labour from the turn of the last century all you can; but it would be nice if you also attacked and sanctioned it today also as it is more prevalent today around the globe than it was a century ago. So to sum up, the expiration date on serious crimes and atrocities is death and there is no expiration date on commentary of same. And yet that is what some in America wish to do by removing these monuments from sight and sweeping the issue back under the rug rather than dealing with the full spectrum of racism in America.

I'm probably over the 5000 character limit so I have to interrupt now.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Visbek:

Did I mention that it sounds like you're being an apologist for the Confederacy and southern slave owners?

Click to expand...

Yes you did, at least twice and you are wrong. You are reading into my words what you want to see and not what I intend. You have no knowledge of my motivations in this thread and are just engaging in supposition. To make things crystal clear for you I will make the following statement as clearly as I can. The institution of human slavery and all those who practiced it or defended it was wrong, very wrong, by modern standards and by the most progressive standards of their own time. However this thread is not about the morality of slavery despite your best efforts to make it so. This thread is about erasing and denying history through the suppression of historical monuments by diktat rather than by democratic consultation and local plebicite. That is the context in which all my comments have been, are being and will be made in this thread.

So we can't make comparative judgments, but we can? Sweet

Click to expand...

Huh? I never said comparative judgments were off the table, so I don't know where you're coming from on this.

Believe it or not, many participants in the pornography industry do consent. So, let's talk about human trafficking, whose participants do not consent.

The big difference between American chattel slavery, and today's human trafficking, should be obvious. The latter is an illegal trade, outlawed and reviled around the world, and is driven far underground. When the authorities find the victims, they free them. The former was a legally sanctioned system, backed by the full power of the state, in which large numbers of people endorsed and benefitted from slavery. States even aided in the attempt to claw escaped slaves back into bondage.

Click to expand...

Pornography exploits desperate people so I reject your point. Furthermore you selectively quoted that section by omitting where I questioned whether today's pornographers could become tomorrow's monsters as an illustration of a hypothetical societal values change. That is the point I have been trying to make all along here. That values change and that changing values alter the select history we choose to validate those values. Slavery was cruel but so was the treatment of many others in the 16th - 19th centuries. Slavery did not stand alone as an atrocity during these brutal times but it has become of focus for Americans to the exclusion of other things. If General Lee has to go, what about removing all the Christian Church art and architecture as sanction for the Wars of Religion and the Thirty Years War? Let the Christians practice their faiths freely but in bare buildings devoid of imagery connected to the toxin of zealotry and religious persecution. If the exploitation and atrocity by slavers and slave owners is surpassed by the crimes of capitalism through colonialism in say the Philippines or Imperial India should statues and books of Adam Smith be removed from from public sight? Clearly these two ideas are daft as is the sanitizing of American public spaces from the stains of American history.

Human trafficking may be illegal but it is widely tolerated in the US and around the globe. Statutes are useless unless they are enforced.

Wow. Just... wow.

It is completely and totally unnecessary to characterize American slavery as "better" or "worse" than any other historical systems of slavery. Even if we can make the case that Roman slavery was worse, that in no way exculpates ANY element of the American system, or reduces its own terrors.

Click to expand...

Context is everything. I was rebutting a comment by SonOfDeadalus where he said that American slavery was far worse than any other slavery. So I agree with your sentiment but circumstances required I compare atrocities. This thread is not about exculpation of slavery but about avoiding the suppression of history, even the repugnant history. But you have seemingly overlooked that nuance of this debate here again as you have above.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Visbek:

Sorry, but you're not fooling anyone with your disclaimers. Putting American slavery "into perspective" ultimately doesn't disprove the mainstream view that American slavery was a moral failure of epic proportions; that it ranged from dehumanizing to horrifying for the slaves; that the Confederacy fought to continue that disastrous institution; that many in the US perpetuated many of its worst aspects, with decades of segregation and abuse.

The people who are whitewashing the history are those who defend the Confederacy; those who refuse to recognize that the Confederate states fought to preserve slavery; those who deny the harmful legacy, which is causing harm even as I type.

Click to expand...

I agree with your characterization of slavery and the the Confederate desire to maintain the institution. However, being bad or grossly morally compromised does not make historical figures a-historical. Julius Caesar slaughtered Gauls and subjugated half of Europe but they still honour him with statues and monuments in France and across the Eurozone. Likewise Napoleon Bonaparte (the Ogre) was a profoundly evil person but is still memorialized despite nearly destroying France. These men were great, not good, and that greatness is their claim to history and to being memorialized, not their intentions or their morality which were base and self-serving beyond measure. Confederates are a part of American History whether you like it or not and to hide their role by removing their statuary from public spaces may comfort some but will delude many as to the truer nature of American history.

I am not defending the Confederacy but your Manichean view of it and the ACW is not a good reflection of the essence of the Civil War's causes and drivers. There was more at stake for both sides than just slavery and that should be remembered too. I do not deny the Confederacy's role in defending slavery at all and I deplore it. Again I hope that clears things up for you.

Do you plan to spend any time telling those individuals that their interpretation of history is missing something? Yes? No?

Click to expand...

Yes I will in a thread about the morality of slavery. This however is not that thread. It's about history and its selective suppression.

I am tired and it is late so I will respond further tomorrow to your post which followed this one to which I have replied.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

The issue is not the impact of Columbian discover and colonization but of the distortion of history. There are cave paintings in South America which seem to show small Asian-like peoples fighting and killing larger dark skinned peoples and some of the oldest remains discovered in Brazil seem to be of African origin. So long before Columbus a paleolithic genocide may have occurred in South America. My point is that these cycles of violence, exploitation and genocide are endemic to history and to human nature.

Click to expand...

An understanding of the import of specific events in history does not require the discussion of extraneous facts, that ultimately have no relevance to the topic.

If our topic is "the history of slavery throughout human history," then it makes sense to be as comprehensive as possible. But when the topic is "who is whitewashing the history of slavery in the United States?" then discussions of slavery in Ancient Rome, or pre-Colombian societies, or even the Portuguese in Canada, is not relevant.

It is also fairly obvious that your goal is to mitigate moral judgments of American slavers. Your protestations to the contrary sound hollow, as it is hard to imagine you do not see the effects of your own claims.

Yes there was strong and growing resistance to slavery from the get go but it did not reach critical mass until the mid 18th Century....

Click to expand...

Points of "critical mass" are not relevant. The question is, what standards should we apply when judging the past? The claim that such judgments are a party foul ultimately does not work, on two points.

The first is that even by their own standards, including the views of contemporary political figures such as Thomas Jefferson, slavery should not have been tolerated. The only way your counter-argument works is if you posit that the validity of moral principles are determined not on their own merits, but by some sort of majority consensus. In which case, you should be rather cognizant of the implications of your moral relativism.

The statute of limitations on even the most heinous crimes is when a person dies and ceases to have legal rights and responsibilities. If you can find a Nazi still alive today and make a good case for punishment then that Nazi should be punished. But once dead their crimes are beyond our censure. I don't think anyone should refrain from commenting on the atrocities, crimes and injustices of the past. So attack child labour from the turn of the last century all you can; but it would be nice if you also attacked and sanctioned it today also as it is more prevalent today around the globe than it was a century ago.

Click to expand...

Pass

If we take your claim seriously, then we cannot pass moral judgment on, say, suicide bombers, yes? After all, death produces absolution from human judgment.

While the deceased perpetrators are unaffected by such judgments, we are. One of the key reasons we develop moral sensibilities is based on what we know about the outcomes of actions. It is ridiculous to say "genocide is bad, but we shouldn't make that judgment about the Holocaust." In fact, part of the hope of studying history is to avoid making those same flawed choices.

We may choose to make allowances for outcomes that were not reasonably predictable. For example, it is difficult to blame the Prohibitionists for the rise in organized crime, as that was not necessarily a predictable outcome of their policies. We can, however, judge them for using alcohol as a proxy to attack immigrants, as they essentially knew what they were doing, and knew at least some of the likely outcomes (e.g. discrimination).

Further, you are relying on false equivalencies and false choices. It makes no sense to equate slavery in the Americas to human trafficking today (per previous post). Classifying the Holocaust as immoral does not prevent us from making the same judgment about more recent genocides.

I.e. you've basically given no reason whatsoever to abstain from judgment of past events.

Evilroddy said:

Yes you did, at least twice and you are wrong....

Click to expand...

I agree I can't read your mind. However, I can read what you're writing, and notice what you're omitting. You seem intent on mitigating the harm and judgment of the past, and I have no qualms about pointing that out.

The institution of human slavery and all those who practiced it or defended it was wrong, very wrong... etc

Click to expand...

Then, by your own admission, your goal is to prevent moral judgment of past events, even those whose effects are still felt today. Again... Pass

While I can see certain benefits to temporarily suspending judgment in order to learn about past events, that does not justify a permanent suspension. We should not always treat history as an amoral playground without any consequences for the present.

Nor do I see any real benefit to the snippets you're adding. In fact, it sounds an awful lot like your idea of "correcting the record" is "exculpating the Confederacy," a position that -- whether you care to admit it or not -- essentially licenses white supremacists and related ideologies.

Pornography exploits desperate people so I reject your point. Furthermore you selectively quoted that section by omitting where I questioned whether today's pornographers could become tomorrow's monsters as an illustration of a hypothetical societal values change...etc

Click to expand...

So, we're back to moral relativism. Why wait until people die? A white supremacist could easily posit that people today do not have the standing to draw a moral judgment... and therefore abstain from legal judgment as well. After all, we don't share the same ethos, right? And what if people in the future change their mind about white supremacy, and view it as acceptable?

Should we always try to second-guess how our descendants will judge us? Is that a valid means to make a judgment?

To be clear, we can't say "moral relativism is wrong, because we dislike the consequences." But if you're advancing moral relativism, you should be clear about that, and its implications.

Slavery was cruel but so was the treatment of many others in the 16th - 19th centuries. Slavery did not stand alone as an atrocity during these brutal times but it has become of focus for Americans to the exclusion of other things.

Click to expand...

What "exclusion?" As crippled as Americans are in their knowledge of history, surely you realize they know more about our past than "Americans owned slaves."

That said, we often focus on slavery because it is such a blatant contradiction and warping of the key political concepts of our nation; and it left a legacy of racism, segregation, discrimination and hatred, that carries right down to today.

If General Lee has to go, what about removing all the Christian Church art and architecture as sanction for the Wars of Religion and the Thirty Years War?

Click to expand...

An excellent response to these Slippery Slope arguments is here
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...confederate-monuments/?utm_term=.2517fe4cfff7

As a more specific response: I don't think most churches would want to revel in their moral failures. That likely includes events like the Inquisition, or the Crusades, or the Catholic Church's pedophilia crisis, and yes that may extend to violent conflicts over religion.

And while I'm not an expert on church decoration, last I checked they usually focus on the life of Jesus and related figures, e.g. apostles, saints, angels. Celebrating the Wars of Religion is not, to my knowledge, a common subject in Christian devotional art.

Human trafficking may be illegal but it is widely tolerated in the US and around the globe. Statutes are useless unless they are enforced.

Click to expand...

Human trafficking is illegal, and is not tolerated around the globe. Its pernicious nature is in no small part because it's driven underground, and because it is a difficult set of laws to enforce. Perpetrators select vulnerable targets, transport victims across national borders, they threaten them into submission, they assault or kill those who attempt to escape, they bribe officials, and their customers are not motivated to snitch.

Or: The federal government does not want illegal immigration. Their inability to completely seal the border is not a sign that they are unmotivated. It's a sign that as long as there are incentives to enter the US without authorization, it will be difficult (if not impossible) to stop illegal border crossings.

Equating state-sanctioned slavery with outlawed human trafficking does not work.

Removing a statue is not "erasing history" or anything so dramatic. Baltimore did it overnight to avoid drama. The statues will be replaced with a plaque describing what was there and why/where it's gone.

Evilroddy said:

I agree with your characterization of slavery and the the Confederate desire to maintain the institution.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that clarification.

However, being bad or grossly morally compromised does not make historical figures a-historical. Julius Caesar slaughtered Gauls and subjugated half of Europe but they still honour him with statues and monuments in France and across the Eurozone. Likewise Napoleon Bonaparte (the Ogre) was a profoundly evil person but is still memorialized despite nearly destroying France. These men were great, not good, and that greatness is their claim to history and to being memorialized, not their intentions or their morality which were base and self-serving beyond measure.

Click to expand...

I don't know how French people today feel about Caesar. I suspect the average French citizen doesn't feel much, though. It is much harder to point out direct effects of his actions on modern France, whereas the impacts of slavery are still profound in the US today. (We might even argue that Caesar ultimately didn't matter much; if Caesar had failed, another Roman military leader was likely to succeed.) What I do know is that he is a complicated figure -- and that this should not persuade us to suspend all moral judgment of his actions.

His contemporaries certainly did not refrain from doing so. To many Romans, he was revered for his conquests in the name of Rome, and beloved by his soldiers. Others saw him as a slick-tongued tyrant who killed honorable Roman leaders (Pompey, ), plunged Rome into civil war, and ended the Republic. I'm quite certain the Gauls despised him as well. While their standards and reasoning are not the same as ours, we may well draw our own conclusions about his actions.

Should France remove statues and monuments to him? Maybe, but for different reasons than our removing Confederate statues. Most of those monuments are ancient, and a part of history; when possible, they should probably be moved indoors for preservation purposes. When that's not possible, we can look at those objects not as reverence for Caesar, but as a recognition of the ancient artistry and its influence.

That wasn't the purpose of the cheap Confederate statues that dot the US. Their goal was to celebrate the end of Reconstruction, to rewrite history into the "Lost Cause" format, and remind blacks that "we never wanted you to be free." It doesn't help their cause that most of those statues are less than 100 years old.

What is "greatness," by the way? Do you mean influence? If so, should we place statues of Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan all over their territories? Should Germany and France be awash in statues memorializing Kaiser Wilhelm and Nazi leaders? Surely they had a similar impact as Caesar.

Confederates are a part of American History whether you like it or not and to hide their role by removing their statuary from public spaces may comfort some but will delude many as to the truer nature of American history.

Click to expand...

I have no problems whatsoever with discussing the role of the Confederacy in American history.

However, ignored statues celebrating Confederate leaders in small parks does pretty much nothing to provide people with an accurate understanding of that history.

Nor should we erect hagiographic statues of Hitler or Goering all over Europe, just to remind us "the Nazis were here." Or, a statue that venerates Osama Bin Laden at the 9/11 site.

And what is this "truer" history? How does taking down statues somehow compromise that history? How does leaving it up enhance that history -- one that you currently claim is mistaken, despite their presence? Little snippets referring to Portuguese slavery doesn't really say much at all....

Visbek:

Errr... yeah, it is. For starters, around 2.5 million Africans died in the Middle Passage. Death rates were nowhere near that high for European migrants -- most of whom voluntarily came to the New World.

Click to expand...

I believe that that number includes all slaves being transported to all destinations in North, South and Central America and is not limited to the later USA colonies alone. The total number of African slaves transported to the what would become the USA is more likely to be around 300,000 souls and death rates during transportation were reported to be about 20-30% of the transported. That is a monstrous death toll so you will get no argument from me as to the immorality and culpability of the slavers who did this and the slave owners who created the demand for this repugnant trafficking. We can quibble about the numbers but you are right to point out the savage scale of death caused by the transportation of slaves. However, that does not moot the issue of penal servitude and penal transportation meted out to Scots but rather puts it into perspective.

Yeah... no. That's largely a denialist myth. Indentured servitude was voluntary and temporary (5-10 years). Few Europeans were kidnapped and forced into indentured servitude.

Click to expand...

No it is not. Penal servitude and penal transportation were used to punish captured Scots soldiers, petty criminals, public agitators, the poor and bankrupt and were not universally voluntary by any means. IIRC starting in 1650 after the Battle of Dunbar between Oliver Cromwell's parliamentary army and Leslie's Scots thousands of Scots (6,000-10,000) were marched off and if they survived (about 3,000 survived) they were summarily sentenced to involuntary servitude, most throughout England, Over a thousand were shipped off to the Caribbean colonies and several hundred were shipped to the American colonies which would eventually become the USA. Canada received more than America. Subsequent battles produced more Scots for penal servitude/indenture and transportation. This continued through the later Jacobite Wars and was not finally discontinued until 1868 IIRC. Reasonable estimates place the total numbers transported to the Americas over the 200 year period at between 50,000 and 120,000 but records are notoriously vague and so these are not hard facts. Of those transported and indentured about 15-20% were involuntary penal remedies.

Yes, British treatment of captured soldiers was horrendous. You do understand that doesn't excuse any of the abuses of the Middle Passage, right? Right...?

Click to expand...

Excuse, no. Put into perspective, yes. And before you protest, putting something into an historical perspective is not excusing it. The brutality of the 16th-19th centuries killed many through a myriad of kinds of violence and slavery was but one part of the carnage wrought by the powerful against the weak during this period. Slavery is one item one the long butcher's bill of death by European states, commercial concerns and their cooperating allies in Africa.

Both betrayed their principles when it came to the issue of slavery. Their contemporaries and friends (or rivals...) such as Hamilton and Jay were members of the Manumission Society. Washington's friends told him that his ownership of slaves would be a black mark on his legacy.

Click to expand...

The point is that there historical figures were no different from General Robert Lee but no one outside of the fringe of interest groups to the best of my knowledge is demanding the removal of statues and monuments to these founding fathers of the USA despite their status as traitors and slave owners/defenders.

Continued on next post.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Visbek:

What the ****. The Articles of Confederation were a failure. They were validly replaced by the ratification of the Constitution of the United States, a perpetual union that had no mechanism for states to depart. All 13 original states ratified the Constitution by 1790. Oh, and as a reminder: States are not people, and do not have "rights." They did not have the power to secede, and failed to do so by force.

Click to expand...

This is really not the place to go into a discussion of state's rights, the sovereignty of the states, the adoption and ratification of the Articles of Confederation (AoC), the requirement for unanimous consent to modify the AoC, the political rather than legal abrogation of the AoC and the opinions of founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson on secession. Sufficed to say many in the South believed that there was more at stake than slavery alone (although slavery was a big part of the calculation) in the decision to go to war with the Union. And before you quote the perpetual union argument reading the AoC in context makes that union more like a treaty bloc between sovereign states and not a union into one state with a strong central government.

States are not people but they are legal persons with rights and responsibilities. They did not have the power to secede as proven by the outcome of the ACW but they may very well have had the legal and constitutional (AoC) authority to do so until the matter was settled by war and the Texas vs. White case decision in 1869.

The Confederate states seceded because of slavery. All you have to do is read their own statements of secession.

They were proud to fight for slavery. Why do you feel the need to whitewash them?

Click to expand...

Slavery was very much a part of the Confederacy's secession calculation but other factors informed their decision as well. Giving full air to the nuances and dimensions of historical events is not whitewashing them. History does not require that men be good to be remembered and honoured for the footprints they leave on our past. Confederate leaders who embraced and defended slavery were bad and morally compromised but they were also great persons who shaped history and thus are historically relevant even today. That bad equates with 'must be forgotten' is your opinion but I do not share it.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

American Negro chattel slavery, Indian slavery, and white servitude occurred.

A more accurate discussion of their history will occur in public museums that are curated for that purpose than on public squares, where they no longer belong.

Bucky said:

We need to embrace our past and rich history. Using today's rules and moral standards and comparing them to what people did 100 years ago is dangerous.

People shouldn't be ashamed or embarrassed of their ancestors.

Click to expand...

That is ultimately the objective here. This is about condemning things that people in the past said or did and trying to force tthose beliefs on people now. Imagine if Republicans decided to show tthat Democrats were the slaveholding party.

The crowd is not the sum of its parts.

I am a republican who did not vote for Trump (Or Hillary).

Click to expand...

blackjack50 said:

That is ultimately the objective here. This is about condemning things that people in the past said or did and trying to force tthose beliefs on people now. Imagine if Republicans decided to show tthat Democrats were the slaveholding party.

Click to expand...

Just more dishonesty

blackjack50 said:

That is ultimately the objective here. This is about condemning things that people in the past said or did and trying to force tthose beliefs on people now. Imagine if Republicans decided to show tthat Democrats were the slaveholding party.

Click to expand...

Imagine if we told the Americans who fought them that they can't judge the Nazis.

Be careful of present-ism, yes, but also don't think we can't pass judgments on Al-quada, the Crusaders, the Inquisition, the American slaveocracy and the Civil War, Aztec human sacrifice, or the abysmal failure of this year's San Francisco Giants, and Joel Osteen's lousing preaching.

Right wing media's game of telephone is fun to watch.

Some guy writes "yeah the left will come for Mount Rushmore next," now it has evolved into "many on the left want to take down Mount Rushmore."

I've never seen a single person, ever, suggest such a thing. But sure. Many on the left.

Whatever it takes for you to pretend the literal Nazis on your side don't exist, I guess.