Expunging U.S. History

[OUBubba]

The Charlottesville statue was commissioned in 1917 and erected in 1924. Do you think that has anything to do with the revival of the KKK starting in 1915, hitting its zenith in the 1920's? Just a coincidence?

Again, the local politicians voted to remove the statue. This wasn't particularly controversial until the outsiders (on all sides of the political spectrum) took up the cause.



Isn't that the crux of the matter? WWII vets were fighting for the USA. These Southern heroes were fighting for a subset of the South and against their slaves rights. Do you think a descendant of a slave might look at a Robert E. Lee statue different than McArthur?

That's the point. My ancestors weren't slaves so my opinion is moot. While I have native american lineage, I don't think I've ever been treated poorly for it and I didn't grow up in the culture or on a reservation. Therefore, I defer to natives who have with the whole mascot thing because I've not walked a mile in their shoes. I do applaud the effort to get Andrew Jackson removed from the $20. He has a special place in my dark heart.

 

[mb227]

Isn't that the crux of the matter? WWII vets were fighting for the USA. These Southern heroes were fighting for a subset of the South and against their slaves rights. Do you think a descendant of a slave might look at a Robert E. Lee statue different than McArthur?

I wonder what the ESPN Robert Lee might think of when they look at a statue of MacArthur given the impact of MacArthur upon Lee's ancestors in the Pacific Theatre.

Actually, I would venture to say it doesn't impact him and he gave about the same amount of thought as current black kids gave to statues before they were told to hate them...

As to the earlier comment about a statue of Andrew Jackson, why would there be opposition to his statue in front of the courthouse if your region had, for example, been Jackson County. The County was named for him long before the Civil War. He recognized the Republic of Texas while President. The libtards needs to understand that the statues recognized people for far more than their actions during the Civil War. The persons being recognized generally had a lengthy career story that went far beyond confederacy-related issues. The push to eradicate statues is indeed telling the current generation that it is perfectly ok to erase people from historical view because of one component of their life...

 

[Seattle Husker]

It's 4%. I'm not sure how significant that is. So basically the strategy to get things done at the local level is to get 4% of the people to get really angry, sign a petition and threaten the city council with national attention and accusations of racism, and you can pretty much do whatever you want.

Go out and try to get 4% of your town's signatures for a petition. Let me know how long it takes. Where are you getting the latter "threaten the city council with national attention"? I know mayor urged the city council to approve it but I haven't read the narrative you're advancing.

They may or may not be preaching superiority, but I'm not sure you can say they're preaching equality when they're saying that a person should be judged as evil/racist/the cause of societal ills and in need of re-education based on their skin color and cultural/political worldview.

Are they saying all white people are in need of re-education? If so, I've missed that. I think you need to look closer at what spawned the BLM, black youth dying by police gunfire at disproportionally much higher rates than other ethnicities. Much stiffer criminal sentences for similar crimes for black youth. Longer incarceration rates. etc. etc.

Yes, much of this is attributable to the black community. Thus they also need to look inward but that doesn't mean that they also don't need to concurrently look outward. At the time of the Ferguson incident the police force had 4 black officers out of 56 total policing a population that was 78% black. The lack of trust between the community and officers are understandable when they are nothing alike.

I'm not here to defend the extreme elements of the BLM but they do have a solid foundation. It's the tactics that I often disagree with.

 

[OUBubba]

I wonder what the ESPN Robert Lee might think of when they look at a statue of MacArthur given the impact of MacArthur upon Lee's ancestors in the Pacific Theatre.

Actually, I would venture to say it doesn't impact him and he gave about the same amount of thought as current black kids gave to statues before they were told to hate them...

As to the earlier comment about a statue of Andrew Jackson, why would there be opposition to his statue in front of the courthouse if your region had, for example, been Jackson County. The County was named for him long before the Civil War. He recognized the Republic of Texas while President. The libtards needs to understand that the statues recognized people for far more than their actions during the Civil War. The persons being recognized generally had a lengthy career story that went far beyond confederacy-related issues. The push to eradicate statues is indeed telling the current generation that it is perfectly ok to erase people from historical view because of one component of their life...

Jackson used the Cherokees as allies to defeat the Creeks. He then turned on the Cherokees and refused to honor the Supreme Court ruling in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, leading to the deaths of thousands of the 5 tribes in the various removals. Maybe I'm petty but I think ignoring the Court seems like a deal breaker when it resulted in such a big deal. Ironically, he was a populist that drove the movement that saw Davy Crockett utter this sentence: "they might go to hell, and I would go to Texas".

 

[Seattle Husker]

I wonder what the ESPN Robert Lee might think of when they look at a statue of MacArthur given the impact of MacArthur upon Lee's ancestors in the Pacific Theatre.

That depends. Is ESPN's Robert Lee a Japanese national? If not, I suspect he might not approve of a monument to any individual that advocated interning Japanese Americans during WWII. Then your comparison would be valid.

 

[Seattle Husker]

The push to eradicate statues is indeed telling the current generation that it is perfectly ok to erase people from historical view because of one component of their life...

I disagree. (edited to temper my enthusiasm) Where has anyone advocated removing these individuals from history books? Will Robert E. Lee be suddenly represented as the "Confederate Leader" in history books with a shadow of an image? If not, nobody has removed anyone from history but rather recognizing that what these individuals stood for may not represent all of the population from where the statues reside.

 

[Htown77]

Do you think a descendant of a slave might look at a Robert E. Lee statue different thanMcArthur?

Yes and I find UT's Malcom X Lounge offensive, but I have never felt like my individual feelings trump an entire group's wish to have a Malcom X Lounge.

44% of blacks are against removal while only 40% were for it according to that poll. Overall the polls average at 27% of americans and less than a third of people should not be enough to tear any monument they dont like for any reason down.

The Charlottesville statue was commissioned in 1917 and erected in 1924. Do you think that has anything to do with the revival of the KKK starting in 1915, hitting its zenith in the 1920's? Just a coincidence?

The second klan was completely independent of the monument movements.

The monument movement was led by the Sons of Confederate Veterans and United Daughters of the Confederacy which are similar to the Daughters of the Republic of Texas and Daughters of the American Revolution. All of those movements go around preserving monuments and historic sites. Members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, a group who along with the Daughters of the Confederacy, built almost all of these monuments. Harry Truman and Omar Bradly were members of the sons of confederate veterans. Maybe you have never heard of these groups or the daughters of the american revolution.

Dates are important. Daughters of the American Revolution was founded in 1890. Daughters of the Republic of Texas was founded in 1891. Daughters of the Confederacy was founded 1894. The Sons of Confederate Veterans were founded in 1896. John Reagan (a UT statue taken down) founded Texas State Historical Society in 1897. All of these groups went around building monuments and preserving history. Preserving history was the it thing to do in the 1890s. These groups were building and lobbying for monuments 20 years before the second klan existed. Guess what? Monuments take time. We did not have a WW2 Memorial until 2004.

The Lincoln Memorial was built from 1914-1922 in the building monuments era. Do you think they built it because of the Klan? Jefferson memorial was 1939. Klan related?

The second Klan was the result of the movie the Birth of Nation. The second klan was not in its heyday pro South. It was pro white supremacist America. Read the wikipedia plot of "Birth of a Nation." The movie wasnt promoting the South. It was promoting a UNITED WHITE UNITED STATES! The KKK was based in Indiana and was pro the Union. Their flag was the Star Spangled Banner NOT the Confederate Flag. They were a bad movement that wanted to take our country a bad direction but their rise and fall in the 20s did not correspond to the "honoring the south" movement which started well before and continued well after.

From the Southern Poverty Law Center: 4. There were two major periods in which the dedication of Confederate monuments and other symbols spiked — the first two decades of the 20th century and during the civil rights movement.

I have addressed the above, but CNN claimed the flag in Columbia, South Carolina was put up in 1961 because of the Civil Rights. CNN later retracted this when it was proven it was put up for the 100 year anniversary of secession.

So let's see. A massive monuments movement for all American history started in the 1890s and many monuments followed. Then the 100th anniversary of the civil war happened. Then add to the fact that monuments are often built randomly way after the events happen like the WW2 memorial due to funding and other issues.

Neither of you have southern heritage and are looking at a culture you dont understand from an outsiders perspective. You are going for the simplest explanation (racism) which is ignorant and inaccurate.

Groups claiming the statues were put up for racism have given you an incomplete historical picture. They are like what you may consider the "Fox News" of history haha.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Neither of you have southern heritage and are looking at a culture you dont understand from an outsiders perspective. You are going for the simplest explanation (racism) which is ignorant and inaccurate.

You're right. I'm not Southern. Are you from Charlottesville? Again, national polls should bear no factor in who some local community chooses to put on a bronze pedestal. It should be OK for that local community to change their perspective on who to honor over time too. That appears to be what was done in Charlottesville.

 

[OUBubba]

Yes and I find UT's Malcom X Lounge offensive, but I have never felt like my individual feelings trump an entire group's wish to have a Malcom X Lounge.

44% of blacks are against removal while only 40% were for it according to that poll. Overall the polls average at 27% of americans and less than a third of people should not be enough to tear any monument they dont like for any reason down.



The second klan was completely independent of the monument movements.

The monument movement was led by the Sons of Confederate Veterans and United Daughters of the Confederacy which are similar to the Daughters of the Republic of Texas and Daughters of the American Revolution. All of those movements go around preserving monuments and historic sites. Members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, a group who along with the Daughters of the Confederacy, built almost all of these monuments. Harry Truman and Omar Bradly were members of the sons of confederate veterans. Maybe you have never heard of these groups or the daughters of the american revolution.

Dates are important. Daughters of the American Revolution was founded in 1890. Daughters of the Republic of Texas was founded in 1891. Daughters of the Confederacy was founded 1894. The Sons of Confederate Veterans were founded in 1896. John Reagan (a UT statue taken down) founded Texas State Historical Society in 1897. All of these groups went around building monuments and preserving history. Preserving history was the it thing to do in the 1890s. These groups were building and lobbying for monuments 20 years before the second klan existed. Guess what? Monuments take time. We did not have a WW2 Memorial until 2004.

The Lincoln Memorial was built from 1914-1922 in building monuments era. Do you think they built it because of the Klan? Jefferson memorial was 1939. Klan related?

The second Klan was the result of the movie the Birth of Nation. The second klan was not in its heyday pro South. It was pro white supremacist America. Read the wikipedia plot of "Birth of a Nation." The movie wasnt promoting the South. It was promoting a UNITED WHITE UNITED STATES! The KKK was based in Indiana and was a pro union movement. Their flag was the Star Spangled Banner NOT the Confederate Flag. They were a bad movement that wanted to take our country a bad direction but their rise and fall in the 20s did not correspond to the "honoring the south" movement which started well before and continued well after.




I have addressed the above, but CNN claimed the flag in Columbia, South Carolina was put up in 1961 because of the Civil Rights. CNN later retracted this when it was proven it was put up for the 100 year anniversary of secession.

So let's see. A massive monuments movement for all American history started in the 1890s and many monuments followed. Then the 100th anniversary of the civil war happened. Then add to the fact that monuments are often built randomly way after the events happen like the WW2 memorial due to funding and other issues.

Neither of you have southern heritage and are looking at a culture you dont understand from an outsiders perspective. You are going for the simplest explanation (racism) which is ignorant and inaccurate.

Groups claiming the statues were put up for racism have given you an incomplete historical picture. They are like what you may consider the "Fox News" of history haha.

I actually do have Southern heritage. My native ancestors were descended from a mixed Indian/Anglo physician and were slave holders in both Alabama and Louisiana. It's much better documented than the other side just by the nature of geneology and native histories but I know that Tennessee, Arkansas and Spur, Texas are involved in the cracker side.

 

[Mr. Deez]

They get ousted Deez. Leaders in both parties keep pandering to the 27% that want statues removed. The results are them being out of step with the majority and people like Donald Trump getting elected. Leaders being out of step with things 70% want or don't care about and acting in favor of the 27% has results. The results may not be getting statutes back but the results do include division and worse candidates. Hillary pandering to the extreme left and becoming out of step with the majority was a factor in her losing. Another example is Nikki Haley. Quite a few people, including myself, will never vote for her now no matter what.

The issue is not big enough that someone is going to vote for someone who wants to put the statues back, but it is big enough to cause people to vote for the outsiders (who are sometimes loons) running against incumbents in primaries or general elections. In short, elected officials should not pander to dumb, extremist wishes of less than 30% on something (statues) that is not harming anyone.

"Government goes to those who show up." The majority may not have favored taking these memorials and the flags down, but if they don't give enough of a crap to engage the issue or vote on it, then they're going to lose. It's a little like gun control. At one time or another, majorities have favored all kinds of gun controls. However, they lose, because they don't show up, and the gun lobby always does. And by the way, the "I care but not enough to get off my couch" people don't deserve to win.

 

[Htown77]

"Government goes to those who show up." The majority may not have favored taking these memorials and the flags down, but if they don't give enough of a crap to engage the issue or vote on it, then they're going to lose. It's a little like gun control. At one time or another, majorities have favored all kinds of gun controls. However, they lose, because they don't show up, and the gun lobby always does. And by the way, the "I care but not enough to get off my couch" people don't deserve to win

That is true is many cases but take San Antonio for example. 300 people showed up to defend a confederate monument and 300 people showed up to remove. That is 600 out of a city of 1.5 million. The City Council is looking at removing them. If 300 people show up on each side in a city of 1.5 million, it is a non-issue and the correct response by the city would be to do nothing and leave things alone.

 

[Seattle Husker]

That is true is many cases but take San Antonio for example. 300 people showed up to defend a confederate monument and 300 people showed up to remove. That is 600 out of a city of 1.5 million. The City Council is looking at removing them. If 300 people show up on each side in a city of 1.5 million, it is a non-issue and the correct response by the city would be to do nothing and leave things alone.

Why is that the correct response? Is the "show up" crowd the only avenue for feedback? Of course, the elected officials have a lot of influence in these matters. The people have the best method for inhibiting them, voting.

 

[mb227]

I disagree. (edited to temper my enthusiasm) Where has anyone advocated removing these individuals from history books? Will Robert E. Lee be suddenly represented as the "Confederate Leader" in history books with a shadow of an image? If not, nobody has removed anyone from history but rather recognizing that what these individuals stood for may not represent all of the population from where the statues reside.

So...when you go to a museum or park, you just try and find the visitor's center to get a book? You don't try to wander and LEARN?

NO statue or monument is EVER going to represent the entirety of the population in the area where it is situated. By your logic, at least we should not ever have to deal with a statue of Obummer or HRC...because neither of them represent ALL of the population where they might be placed.

 

[mb227]

That depends. Is ESPN's Robert Lee a Japanese national? If not, I suspect he might not approve of a monument to any individual that advocated interning Japanese Americans during WWII. Then your comparison would be valid.

The Pacific Theatre encompassed far more than Japanese territory.

 

[Seattle Husker]

The Pacific Theatre encompassed far more than Japanese territory.

I'm clearly not getting this tenuous analogy.

 

[Seattle Husker]

So...when you go to a museum or park, you just try and find the visitor's center to get a book? You don't try to wander and LEARN?

NO statue or monument is EVER going to represent the entirety of the population in the area where it is situated. By your logic, at least we should not ever have to deal with a statue of Obummer or HRC...because neither of them represent ALL of the population where they might be placed.

I didn't say it needs to represent everyone but rather there are means to ensure the community supports it. In the case of Charlottesville, the community no longer supported the statue as represented by their elected officials decisions. It can't get plainer than that. As demographics of a community change it's perfectly acceptable for the views of the citizenry to change with it. There is no law that once a statue is erected they should remain forever more.

If Chicago chooses to erect a statue of POTUS Obama then in 100 years chooses to remove it that's their decision. What does that have to do with me? Statues aren't the only way to learn but I do understand that they should be representative of those we look up to. I'm guessing but it seems that Robert E. Lee was no longer viewed as someone to revere. That may piss off the Sons of the Confederacy or some other Southern organization but unless you live in Charlottesville you may be a little full of yourself if you think you should have a voice in who Charlottesville residents choose to put on a pedestal.

 

[ShAArk92]

Seems the thread has drifted from the UT/Fenves letter/action string ... so my comment may be misplaced.

So be it.

If Fenves' decision was righteous, why was the action taken in the darkness of night?

If Fenves' decision was just, why wasn't there a presser about it on Monday, concluding with the first statue being removed.

If Fenves' declaration of the statues' representation is accurate (shared by the neo-nazis/antifas) ... why do the statues remain recognizable and are not ... DESTROYED?

If Fenves' decision is the right one, then we've been wrong for an awful long time ... longer than we actually had slaves, methinks.

Fenves' UT administration has become more aggressive in their appeal for funds from alumni ... yet ... given the City of Dallas has priced the move of their monuments at about 600K/each ... that's 2.4 million/roughly that Fenves just spent in a few hours. I recognize "We're Texas" ... but c'mon.

Don't come crying to me for funds when you can do that ... with such weak justification.

Talk about privilege.

 

[Crockett]

If Lee is of Korean or Chinese ancestry likely his forebears were brutally repressed by the Japanese. I find modern Japanese people to be kind and friendly. That differs from the experience of the people of Nanking China.

 

[mb227]

I didn't say it needs to represent everyone but rather there are means to ensure the community supports it. In the case of Charlottesville, the community no longer supported the statue as represented by their elected officials decisions. It can't get plainer than that. As demographics of a community change it's perfectly acceptable for the views of the citizenry to change with it. There is no law that once a statue is erected they should remain forever more.

Except that it does not appear that the majority of the citizenry in Charlottesville supported the removal. That the elected officials made a decision does NOT mean it was supported. By your logic, that means we should all be jumping for joy over the stupdity displayed by Fenves. As this and other threads demonstrate, there are MANY who previously engaged in the support of the University who DO NOT support the actions of the idiot in charge.

It cannot get plainer than that.

 

[mb227]

Seems the thread has drifted from the UT/Fenves letter/action string ... so my comment may be misplaced.

I just tried to bring it back around and tie things together...

 

[Seattle Husker]

Except that it does not appear that the majority of the citizenry in Charlottesville supported the removal. That the elected officials made a decision does NOT mean it was supported.

We know it went through a process far beyond most local decisions. Citizen gathers signatures, petitions the city council, defends it in city council meeting and they vote. That's democracy in action isn't it?

By your logic, that means we should all be jumping for joy over the stupdity displayed by Fenves. As this and other threads demonstrate, there are MANY who previously engaged in the support of the University who DO NOT support the actions of the idiot in charge.

It cannot get plainer than that.

Not sure how I got roped into the Fenves thread. Sorry, I thought this was on a Charlottesville thread. This is your battle to fight as UT alums.

 

[ShAArk92]

This is your battle to fight as UT alums.

So it is ... "Fight's ON" as we say when the engagement begins.

I just tried to bring it back around and tie things together...

no worries, mb ... I'm probably the one out of line AFA post:thread relevance.

 

[mb227]

We know it went through a process far beyond most local decisions. Citizen gathers signatures, petitions the city council, defends it in city council meeting and they vote. That's democracy in action isn't it?

If it had been a petition to put something on the ballot, then yes, the very small percentage of the population signing a petition would be an example of democracy in action. But letting that small group of signatories push around an elected body of a dozen people (if that many) is NOT representative action. I hope the lot of them is voted out in their next election cycle...

 

[OUBubba]

I'd think there's a place to take down potentially "risky" statues to assure their safety on the UT campus. At least until "we can figure out what's going on". I don't think the confederate flag is down forever at six flags but for the time being they're all US flags. It's a temporary thing.

 

[Seattle Husker]

If it had been a petition to put something on the ballot, then yes, the very small percentage of the population signing a petition would be an example of democracy in action. But letting that small group of signatories push around an elected body of a dozen people (if that many) is NOT representative action. I hope the lot of them is voted out in their next election cycle...

Curious...where is the narrative that the city council was threatened or pushed around coming from? I know the Mayor urged them to vote for the change but that's hardly controversial.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I don't think the confederate flag is down forever at six flags but for the time being they're all US flags. It's a temporary thing

I wouldn't assume that it's not. When I was a kid in the '80s and early '90s, the park was organized into sections based on the six different flags, one of which was called the Confederacy. They now refer to that area as the "Old South."

 

[OUBubba]

I wouldn't assume that it's not. When I was a kid in the '80s and early '90s, the park was organized into sections based on the six different flags, one of which was called the Confederacy. They now refer to that area as the "Old South."

It's going to be cold today but hot tamale!

 

[Clean]

San Antonio Northeast ISD voted 7-0 to rename venerable old Robert E. Lee HS last night. They don't know what they'll rename it, but they felt they "had to get the target off their backs". Apparently they felt that they were under pressure to do it. I do know that former mayor and HUD Sec. Julian Castro DEMANDED they rename Lee some months ago.

Lee was the "in" HS to go to when I was that age. It had powerhouse athletic teams and some of the best academics too.

San Antonio also has a Thomas Jefferson HS (white slave owner) and a Churchill HS (racist), just to name a few. Monument madness is just the beginning. This insanity is going to grow until somebody has the guts to stand up to it.

edit to add:
Changing a high school's name is probably more expensive than you'd think. There's the signs around the buildings, band and athletic uniforms, ROTC uniforms, stationary, etc. That particular district is already broke. They didn't give their teachers a pay raise this year.

 

[Htown77]

Renaming Lee High School is insane. People do not know anything about Robert E. Lee anymore, much less that he freed the slaves he inherited. It is very sad how ignorant our population is. I guess I can see how the anti-statue crowd finds Lee so offensive given that he does not fit their "the South was fighting over slavery" narrative.

 

[Clean]

The Orpheum Theatre in Memphis won't screen "Gone With The Wind" anymore. The Orpheum had screened GWTW every summer for the last 34 years. They say its insensitive to African Americans.

Although it is still the highest grossing movie of all time (in adjusted dollars), we've probably seen the last of it in public places. You'll have to watch it on DVD. Can "Blazing Saddles" be far behind?