• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Confederate Monuments: Taken Down or Leave it Up?

Should these monuments be taken down?

  • Total voters
    95
  • Poll closed .
eohrnberger said:
That.



And that as well.
Click to expand...

The history is unchanged by the removal of monuments.

The past is embossed in a permanence that can never be changed. That is an objective fact.

Changing perceptions on history is different than changing history. Glorifying confederate leadership is, ironically, a re-write of history intended to mislead the public perception.

eohrnberger said:
Not happy with just banning Christians and other conservatives voices from the public square, now you want to ban history as well?
(Or perhaps history you don't approve of).

Seems rather megalomaniac in nature.
Click to expand...

Ban history?

Monuments are not equal to history. They may represent parts of history, and they were certainly created in the past which makes them a part of history, but at some point we have to decide what to glorify and remember, and we should be responsible in doing so.
 
Absentglare said:
The history is unchanged by the removal of monuments.

The past is embossed in a permanence that can never be changed. That is an objective fact.

Changing perceptions on history is different than changing history. Glorifying confederate leadership is, ironically, a re-write of history intended to mislead the public perception.



Ban history?

Monuments are not equal to history. They may represent parts of history, and they were certainly created in the past which makes them a part of history, but at some point we have to decide what to glorify and remember, and we should be responsible in doing so.
Click to expand...

You keep saying glorifying, I not sure that's the only way to view these monuments. They can also legitimately be viewed as a warning to future generations of what has happened in the past, not to be repeated. You know. 'Those that ignore history are bound to repeat it' ? What's better than a public display to remind everyone everyday?

Rather than relegating history to the back corner and out of sight, I think putting history up front in the public eye isn't a bad idea, but a good idea.
Isn't this one of the many reasons that so many US tourists go to visit European countries and cities?

That you view these monuments as 'glorifying' negatives says a allot more about you, and how you view things, than it does about these monuments, doesn't it?
 
eohrnberger said:
You keep saying glorifying, I not sure that's the only way to view these monuments. They can also legitimately be viewed as a warning to future generations of what has happened in the past, not to be repeated. You know. 'Those that ignore history are bound to repeat it' ? What's better than a public display to remind everyone everyday?

Rather than relegating history to the back corner and out of sight, I think putting history up front in the public eye isn't a bad idea, but a good idea.
Isn't this one of the many reasons that so many US tourists go to visit European countries and cities?

That you view these monuments as 'glorifying' negatives says a allot more about you, and how you view things, than it does about these monuments, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

They are certainly glorifying a hideous history of death that was the Civil war. There was no glory on either side only hatred and stupidity. Memorials to the dead would be more appropriate.
 
iguanaman said:
They are certainly glorifying a hideous history of death that was the Civil war. There was no glory on either side only hatred and stupidity. Memorials to the dead would be more appropriate.
Click to expand...

So we should remove the monument at Trinity Site as well then?
After all, that was nothing more than glorifying the death that followed. AMIRITE?
 
iguanaman said:
They are certainly glorifying a hideous history of death that was the Civil war. There was no glory on either side only hatred and stupidity. Memorials to the dead would be more appropriate.
Click to expand...

When most large scale civil wars come to an end the most common outcome is mass trials and hangings of at least the main leaders on the losers side.

As that did not happen in the US civil war I question how must hatred there was between the sides compare to respect with special note of the respect shown in the surrender meeting between Grant and Lee.
 
eohrnberger said:
So we should remove the monument at Trinity Site as well then?
After all, that was nothing more than glorifying the death that followed. AMIRITE?
Click to expand...

There is widespread belief that dropping the bombs on Japan minimized the deaths that an invasion of Japan would have caused.
 
iguanaman said:
They are certainly glorifying a hideous history of death that was the Civil war. There was no glory on either side only hatred and stupidity. Memorials to the dead would be more appropriate.
Click to expand...

Hmm. I kinda thought that all the people depicted in Civil War Memorials would be dead by now. Maybe I'm wrong. :mrgreen:
 
BillRM said:
When most large scale civil wars come to an end the most common outcome is mass trials and hangings of at least the main leaders on the losers side.

As that did not happen in the US civil war I question how must hatred there was between the sides compare to respect with special note of the respect shown in the surrender meeting between Grant and Lee.
Click to expand...
Contrast that with the violent hatred modeled by many on this site today towards people that had and have no bearing on their existence.
 
iguanaman said:
There is widespread belief that dropping the bombs on Japan minimized the deaths that an invasion of Japan would have caused.
Click to expand...

But according to your logic, The monument at Trinity Site is nothing more of the glorification of the invention that could kill more humans faster.

By your same logic, it must be such a hate filled, anti-Japenese, racist monument, it should be taken down.

Now, over in Germany, they have a number of the old concentration camps museums. As reminders of that terrible episode in history, and to never allow the conditions to raise to enable a repetition of the same.
According to your logic, these all need to be closed and torn down, as it glorifies the Holocaust.

Going a bit further, but still within the general premise: The White House in DC was in fact built with slave labor. As such, it stands there as a glorification of slavery. An affront even more egregious than Civil War monuments, and it should be torn down. It must be torn down. There are no other (excessively) Politically Correct answers to this.

My point being, is that once you start, its really hard to stop. Best to just leave them all alone as is and not start, at least from my view. History is history, and historical monument are historical monuments. Best to leave them all alone, before your tear them all down, have nothing left, and lose something rather significant.
 
eohrnberger said:
You keep saying glorifying, I not sure that's the only way to view these monuments. They can also legitimately be viewed as a warning to future generations of what has happened in the past, not to be repeated. You know. 'Those that ignore history are bound to repeat it' ? What's better than a public display to remind everyone everyday?

Rather than relegating history to the back corner and out of sight, I think putting history up front in the public eye isn't a bad idea, but a good idea.
Isn't this one of the many reasons that so many US tourists go to visit European countries and cities?

That you view these monuments as 'glorifying' negatives says a allot more about you, and how you view things, than it does about these monuments, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

What?

Monuments are built to commemorate (show respect for) famous people or events.

We do have some holocaust monuments- they tend to show respect for the victims of the genocide rather than for the Nazi leaders. It'd be pretty disgusting to have a monument for a Nazi leader like Hitler:

There are no official statues of Hitler in Germany used as a statue. The former dictator is essentially a persona non grata in Germany, so you would not want to honour him with statues.

However, there are probably some museums that keep statues out of historical interest. Furthermore, there may be a statue somewhere that has been completely forgotten. Finally, with 80 million people, there are some idiots who worship Hitler and who might keep a statue or even display them publicly.
Click to expand...

https://www.quora.com/Was-there-any-public-statue-of-Adolf-Hitler-in-Germany

The way you warn future generations is with the victims, not by going out of your way to honor the oppressors. That's just ****ing despicable.
 
Absentglare said:
What?

Monuments are built to commemorate (show respect for) famous people or events.

We do have some holocaust monuments- they tend to show respect for the victims of the genocide rather than for the Nazi leaders. It'd be pretty disgusting to have a monument for a Nazi leader like Hitler:



https://www.quora.com/Was-there-any-public-statue-of-Adolf-Hitler-in-Germany

The way you warn future generations is with the victims, not by going out of your way to honor the oppressors. That's just ****ing despicable.
Click to expand...

You seem fixated that there is only a single purpose or meaning for historical monuments.
You seem to refuse that there are opinions other than your own, and that they carry just as much validity and legitimacy as your own opinion.

Seems exactly in character to your lean.
 
TheGoverness said:
So, this debate has gotten pretty heated recently, and the city of New Orleans has removed Confederate monuments. The construction crews have had to remove them in the middle of the night, with bulletproof vests, due to the fact that they are (unfortunately) receiving death threats from people. But I wonder what everyone else's take on this issue is? Should these Confederate monuments be removed?

Speaking towards my perspective on the issue, I don't really care either way; it's not of serious comcern to me if these monuments stay up or not. But I don't really think the monuments should be removed. Sure, they do glorify the Confederate generals & figures that lost 150+ years ago, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a part of our history; it doesn't change what happened. Removing these monuments isn't going to change the past. The Confederacy is not going to "rise again" from keeping up these old monuments up. The Confederacy is deader than dead. I think these monuments are a good reminder of our ugly past, we shouldn't remove these monuments because of that.

So what is your perspective? Do you feel these monuments should stay, or to you think they should be taken down?
Click to expand...

As long as they are not honoring white supremists such as Nathan Bedford Forrest, they should be left up as they are a part of history.
 
CMPancake said:
Sure, I have no issue with not sugar coating the fact people like President Lincoln from the 19th century were incredibly racist. But why are you so defensive about the very common fact the Confederate were slave owning traitors who rather die than not own slaves.
Click to expand...

To be fair, 90% of the confederate soldiers did not own slaves. Only wealthy aristrocrats did. And while it was on the way out, slavery still existed at some level in the north.
 
shrubnose said:
We don't have any Nazi monuments in the USA and we don't need any Confederate monuments in memory of those who fought to keep slavery in the South
Click to expand...

That's a truly goofy strawman argument.
 
eohrnberger said:
You seem fixated that there is only a single purpose or meaning for historical monuments.
You seem to refuse that there are opinions other than your own, and that they carry just as much validity and legitimacy as your own opinion.

Seems exactly in character to your lean.
Click to expand...

Monument : a statue, building, or other structure erected to commemorate a famous or notable person or event.

Commemorate : recall and show respect for (someone or something), celebrate (an event, a person, or a situation) by doing or building something.

Words have meaning. If it's a monument, it is expected to be revered.

If it's in a museum, perhaps not. Am i arguing that they should be destroyed? No. I am arguing that they should be in museums. Museums are where we put objects that have outlived their cultural value but still have historical value.
 
TheGoverness said:
Speaking towards my perspective on the issue, I don't really care either way; it's not of serious comcern to me if these monuments stay up or not. But I don't really think the monuments should be removed. Sure, they do glorify the Confederate generals & figures that lost 150+ years ago, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a part of our history; it doesn't change what happened. Removing these monuments isn't going to change the past. The Confederacy is not going to "rise again" from keeping up these old monuments up. The Confederacy is deader than dead. I think these monuments are a good reminder of our ugly past, we shouldn't remove these monuments because of that.
Click to expand...

This draws strong parallels for myself to the decade-long arguments that I witnessed or personally engaged in with other individuals concerning same-sex marriage. You absolutely know that I know that the sole reason behind your anti-SSM position is the simple fact that you don't like or feel uncomfortable around gay people, so cut the "tradition" or "sanctity" or "I'm not homophobic, but ..." bull**** and actually own up to your beliefs.

Similarly there's not a single literate person reading this forum who doesn't know the literal, exact reason why white Southerners want to preserve Confederate memorials, have separate proms or fly Confederate flags on government property, and for anyone to attempt to claim ignorance otherwise is ri-damn-diculous.
 
Absentglare said:
Monument : a statue, building, or other structure erected to commemorate a famous or notable person or event.

Commemorate : recall and show respect for (someone or something), celebrate (an event, a person, or a situation) by doing or building something.

Words have meaning. If it's a monument, it is expected to be revered.

If it's in a museum, perhaps not. Am i arguing that they should be destroyed? No. I am arguing that they should be in museums. Museums are where we put objects that have outlived their cultural value but still have historical value.
Click to expand...

So then you believe that history belongs off in a corner, largely ignored then. OK.

Guess you also support the idea that history should be repeated and not learned from, that history should be removed from the public square then. Fine. As I've posted before, Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one. :shrug:

Sorry that I don't happen to agree with yours on this point.
 
eohrnberger said:
But according to your logic, The monument at Trinity Site is nothing more of the glorification of the invention that could kill more humans faster.

By your same logic, it must be such a hate filled, anti-Japenese, racist monument, it should be taken down.

Now, over in Germany, they have a number of the old concentration camps museums. As reminders of that terrible episode in history, and to never allow the conditions to raise to enable a repetition of the same.
According to your logic, these all need to be closed and torn down, as it glorifies the Holocaust.

Going a bit further, but still within the general premise: The White House in DC was in fact built with slave labor. As such, it stands there as a glorification of slavery. An affront even more egregious than Civil War monuments, and it should be torn down. It must be torn down. There are no other (excessively) Politically Correct answers to this.

My point being, is that once you start, its really hard to stop. Best to just leave them all alone as is and not start, at least from my view. History is history, and historical monument are historical monuments. Best to leave them all alone, before your tear them all down, have nothing left, and lose something rather significant.
Click to expand...

Glorifying Confederate GENERALS is what I have the problem with. They are the worst traitors because they led the rabble that were conscripted to fight their own country for the Wealthy southerners benefit. Without those Generals there would have been no war. Yet even my County in Florida is named after one of them. Why are those losers so special to so many? It seems unhealthy to me.
 
Last edited:
MrWonka said:
It is abso****inglutely thousands of people. Tens of thousands. In fact it's likely closer to hundreds of thousands. The only reason these people have turned to armed rebellion already is because they're winning elections.
Click to expand...

You are making up numbers in your head. There is no sizable movement in the South seeking the rise of the confederacy. The biggest white supremist movements are the Aryan groups, mostly located in areas other then the south.




But him and people like him are a symptom of a culture that still glorifies the Civil War as it if was something that the South was right to be fighting. You're from Texas for god sake don't tell me you haven't heard about the ridiculously high number of Texas that want to succeed from the Union. It's literally something Texas Republicans voted on just last year...

Texas Republicans to Vote on Whether to Secede from USA | Time.com
Click to expand...

So are you assuming that any and all succession movements are motivated by a wish for the south to rise again? Does that go for the left wing state of California? They have a succession movement going as well.

There were numerous republicans before the presidential elections who came out and said that if Hillary Clinton won it would be time for armed conflict.
Click to expand...

I heard no conservative or republican asking for or wishing for armed conflict if Hillary Von Pantsuit had won. However I would not have been surprised if more succession movements (peaceful, not armed) had started if she had won. People who are not alt-extreme leftwingers would have been right to fear the appointments she would have made to the US Supreme Court, as well as a continued effort by the left to change the voting demographics by way of an intentional massive in flux of illegal immigrants that they could ply with government entitlements.
 
iguanaman said:
Glorifying Confederate GENERALS is what I have the problem with. They are the worst traitors because they led the rabble that were conscripted to fight their own country for the Wealthy southerners benefit. Without those Generals there would have been no war. Yet even my County in Florida is named after one of them. Why are those losers so special to so many?
Click to expand...

You can't take away from them that these Generals distinguished themselves in battle and led their men, regardless of their political positions at the time.

Again, just because a monument is raised, doesn't mean glorifying them, nor glorifying their political positions of the time, which are usually not well reflected when interpreted through present day lenses. Their acts of distinction should be no less minimize because of their being on the losing side. Their acts of distinction should be considered separate from that.

Just because the South lost the civil war doesn't mean that they didn't have brave mean, brave and inspiring leaders. Or is it your position that all of the South where cowards just because they lost? Just because they didn't back the political position that is acceptable in modern days and modern sensibilities?

Or do you plan on re-writing all of history every time modern day sensibilities change? To cast those of history who don't measure up to modern political measure into obscurity, just because?

Are you prepared to discard, minimize, eliminate all of history that you don't agree with? How about the history that others object to?
How much of history would be left? Any at all? Isn't that a loss for everyone?
 
Last edited:
Absentglare said:
Monument : a statue, building, or other structure erected to commemorate a famous or notable person or event.

Commemorate : recall and show respect for (someone or something), celebrate (an event, a person, or a situation) by doing or building something.

Words have meaning. If it's a monument, it is expected to be revered.

If it's in a museum, perhaps not. Am i arguing that they should be destroyed? No. I am arguing that they should be in museums. Museums are where we put objects that have outlived their cultural value but still have historical value.
Click to expand...

In that case.....should we force Dodge City Kansas to remove all of the monuments to famous characters of the old west? afterall, the cowboys and Indians cultures in long gone. Should the south be forced to remove all of the old civil war forts, that bring in tourism? Personally, I would have fought for the north. However I do enjoy an occasional walk through of a preserved civil war fort, just over the history. How far would you like to go with the "Take it down" movement. Shall we burn all of the Mark Twain Books? Ban the showings "Gone with the Wind"?
 
MrWonka said:
You are deluding yourself if you believe this. Even a fringe group in a country of over 300 million people can still contain hundreds of thousands of people. And what's worse is that those so called "frige" groups are madly in love with the presidential candidate that over 40% of voters in this country also supported. In reality the entire republican party is a massive white supremacist group that refuses to openly admit it due to the reputation those groups have. Trumps entire campaign slogan was to Make America Great Again, as if it was some how a better place to live back in the 1950's when Jim Crow laws were still in place. If you don't believe these people are a threat you are very naive.
Click to expand...

You have no idea how foolish you look with that claim. You really should learn the actual history of both parties. It was southern democrats who went white supremist. And the republican party was formed as an anti-slavery party. the longest filibuster of the Civil Rights act was by none other then Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, who was a grand cyclops and Kleagle in the KKK....not to mention....a higher percentage of republicans voted for the civil rights act then democrats.
 
There are multiple monuments to Napoleon Bonaparte. A general that killed hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Waged war multiple times on continental Europe, and caused great damage and harm to many nations.

With your logic, all these monuments should be taken down as well then?
 
eohrnberger said:
But according to your logic, The monument at Trinity Site is nothing more of the glorification of the invention that could kill more humans faster.

By your same logic, it must be such a hate filled, anti-Japenese, racist monument, it should be taken down.

Now, over in Germany, they have a number of the old concentration camps museums. As reminders of that terrible episode in history, and to never allow the conditions to raise to enable a repetition of the same.
According to your logic, these all need to be closed and torn down, as it glorifies the Holocaust.

Going a bit further, but still within the general premise: The White House in DC was in fact built with slave labor. As such, it stands there as a glorification of slavery. An affront even more egregious than Civil War monuments, and it should be torn down. It must be torn down. There are no other (excessively) Politically Correct answers to this.

My point being, is that once you start, its really hard to stop. Best to just leave them all alone as is and not start, at least from my view. History is history, and historical monument are historical monuments. Best to leave them all alone, before your tear them all down, have nothing left, and lose something rather significant.
Click to expand...

I toured one of those concentration camps(Dachau)while serving overseas.
 
ObamacareFail said:
I toured one of those concentration camps(Dachau)while serving overseas.
Click to expand...

And I'm sure it left an impression, and I'm sure it wasn't glorification of Nazi's nor the holocaust.

How is a monument to a Civil War General any different than a monument of a concentration camp?
Both are from history.
Both are in public spaces.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom