POLITICS SCHMALITICS

[CMRivdogs]

New study links placement of confederate monuments to lynching…..

 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/survey-identifies-correlation-between-confederate-monuments-and-lynchings-180978873/

 

 

 

Quote

Even when controlling for demographic factors like population numbers, the researchers found that “county-level frequency of lynching predicts county-level frequency of Confederate memorializations.” The paper does not make any causal claims, and the researchers “can’t pinpoint exactly the cause and effect,” says co-author Sophie Trawalter, an expert on public policy and psychology at UVA, in a statement. 

“But,” Trawalter adds, “the association is clearly there. At a minimum, the data suggests that localities with attitudes and intentions that led to lynchings also had attitudes and intentions associated with the construction of Confederate memorials.”

 

 

The findings become even more powerful, the researchers say, when one considers the times and places that the monuments were erected, as well as the contents of speeches given at the memorials’ dedications. As an example, the paper cites a speech delivered by a Confederate veteran at the 1913 dedication ceremony for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s Silent Sam monument. He claimed that Confederate soldiers “saved the very life of the Anglo-Saxon race in the South” and stated that he had publicly whipped a Black woman after the conclusion of the Civil War. 

Per the paper, the team hopes that its findings, which provide empirical data showing a correlation between Confederate monuments and racial terror killings, will help Americans move on from the debate over controversial statues—and perhaps gain some clarity on how to deal with these public works.

 

 

[Tigerbomb13]

BuT wHaT aBoUt HiStOrY?

[CMRivdogs]

My Virginia seventh grade social studies book told me most slaves loved their masters, and spent their free time singing and dancing. History is what you want it to be…and can convince the lowest common denominator 

 

[CMRivdogs]

BTW several years ago in Williamsburg, Va someone tried to start a “History Park”. It featured giant heads of all the presidents. The park failed to attract visitors and lost money. The heads were bought and moved to a construction company’s lot where they sit decaying. They probably make more money on private tours than when they were accessible to the public.

I live in an area dotted with markers and “parks” documenting battles of the Civil War. I really don’t need statues of guys on horses to remind me of the carnage 

[pfife]

25 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

New study links placement of confederate monuments to lynching…..

This takes me back to school.   I worked as a research assistant with a professor who studied lynching.   I spent hours pulling & reading news articles from microfiege (sp?) - it was so sad to research it.   

[romad1]

6 minutes ago, pfife said:

This takes me back to school.   I worked as a research assistant with a professor who studied lynching.   I spent hours pulling & reading news articles from microfiege (sp?) - it was so sad to research it.   

I did a thesis on the author of The Turner Diaries in grad school.  They crazy yo.   Reading about it is mental pollution.  The more you read about their nutty worldview and how deeply they believe it causes one to question any world view that doesn't place crushing that ignorance at the forefront. 

[oblong]

I read Halberstam's book The Fifties which had a huge section on civil rights and the history of lynchings was sobering and terrifying. We did NOT learn that in school.  We should and it should be taught today.  Those who think otherwise have a guilty conscience.

 

[CMRivdogs]

Just an addendum. This essay does a good job explaining, at least in my view, why statues like Robert E Lee and such should be relegated to their proper place in history while somewhat justifying keeping Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and the other “founders” in history.

https://www.thebulwark.com/robert-e-lee-doesnt-deserve-a-statue-but-thomas-jefferson-does/

 

[Archie]

Why are the statutes there in the first place?  Are they there because they supported slavery or for other reasons? Why is ok to desecrate or tear down these statutes but a crime to do the same thing to a G. Floyd statue? A lot of double standards.

[CMRivdogs]

6 minutes ago, Archie said:

Why are the statutes there in the first place?  Are they there because they supported slavery or for other reasons? Why is ok to desecrate or tear down these statutes but a crime to do the same thing to a G. Floyd statue? A lot of double standards.

Most of the confederate soldier monuments were erected in the early 1900s by private groups like sons and daughters of the confederacy. Mostly Jim Crow or KKK related groups or individuals to keep alive the lost cause.

 

Much like those still promoting the Election Lie today. Same mentality. Just another lost cause.

Just curious, just exactly where are there G Floyd statues?

Edited October 20, 2021 by CMRivdogs

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, CMRivdogs said:

Just an addendum. This essay does a good job explaining, at least in my view, why statues like Robert E Lee and such should be relegated to their proper place in history while somewhat justifying keeping Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and the other “founders” in history.

https://www.thebulwark.com/robert-e-lee-doesnt-deserve-a-statue-but-thomas-jefferson-does/

 

I fundamentally disagree with Charon's unsupported premise that "Nations need heros." Nations need ideals, ethics, dedication to principle, they don't need to worship men because as Mona points out eloquently enough, ALL men are flawed enough to be dubious lights for others. Celebrate the accomplishment, always reserve judgement on deifying the person. The DOI is actually more striking once we understand the moral frailty of the people that wrote it, not less. We don't *need* 'heroic' statues of anyone.

Edited October 20, 2021 by gehringer_2

[Archie]

I saw on the news a few months ago where a city - that I cant remember where - erected a statue of Floyd and it was vandalized. They were looking for the people who did it to press charges.

Where does it end on statues or even memorials? Many places have them celebrating soldiers who fought in wars.  The US military these things honor have killed a lot of people. Will they be torn down next?  Tearing down monuments or destroying history is not going to erase that history.  

To remove a statue of a person like Washington because he owned a slave seems rediculous.  No matter how wrong it was in our history it was common and legal.  200 years from now people might look back at us and say how terrible we are for doing something we consider normal. Who knows?

[pfife]

yeah there is a George Floyd statue somewhere, I think it might be portland.  I saw surveillance video on twitter of a dude skating past it and throwing paint on it.  

I'm interested in the equivocation of George Floyd = Robert E Lee in order to claim there's a double standard.  Did George Floyd take up arms against the US?  Literally turning against our nation and attacking it?

FWIW, if it were up to me, there aren't many current people that should be statue-ized, so people 200 years from now shouldn't have to deal with our dumb asses in rock form

Edited October 20, 2021 by pfife

[oblong]

So basically since we ahouldn't have statues of traitors then we shouldn't have statues of anybody?

We're smart enough to decide who should and shouldn't have one on an individual basis.  Personally I have to question the motives of someone who wants to put up a statue on US Soil of someone who shot at and killed US Soldiers but that's just me.

I don't see the equivalence to a statue of a murder victim.

 

[Tigerbomb13]

Comparing a statue of George Floyd to ones erected for those that would have enslaved him, might be the ultimate false equivalency. 

[CMRivdogs]

1 hour ago, Archie said:

I saw on the news a few months ago where a city - that I cant remember where - erected a statue of Floyd and it was vandalized. They were looking for the people who did it to press charges.

Where does it end on statues or even memorials? Many places have them celebrating soldiers who fought in wars.  The US military these things honor have killed a lot of people. Will they be torn down next?  Tearing down monuments or destroying history is not going to erase that history.  

To remove a statue of a person like Washington because he owned a slave seems rediculous.  No matter how wrong it was in our history it was common and legal.  200 years from now people might look back at us and say how terrible we are for doing something we consider normal. Who knows?

First of all I think we’re talking apples and chickpeas here. I see no problems with memorials to the fallen in proper places. Battlefields for one. I happen to like monuments to various units that fought on the battlefield. It gives me some perspective, on where the troops were positioned, number of casualties, etc. Monuments to those who served in various wars in towns and cities seem proper as they are mostly generic. I’ve attended enough Veterans Day events (as a community band member) to appreciate the ceremony.

I do think there needs to be more perspective on individual statues. There are very few people in the last 50 years or so who deserve one. On the other hand Yorktown, Va adding a statue of John Baptiste Donatien, Comte de Rochambeau to the trio of Washington, Adm. Francois Joseph Paul and the Marquis de Lafayette seems appropriate given their proximity to the battlefield.😉

[gehringer_2]

4 minutes ago, oblong said:

So basically since we ahouldn't have statues of traitors then we shouldn't have statues of anybody

Moses probably had it right - no graven images, no debates on personal histories...

Sure it's a dumb debate, but that's only because the premises are so weak on all sides. Just for grins, here is another nuance: Lincoln sitting quietly in a chair vs Lee on horse in uniform with a sword......What the artist was trying to do probably matters, but that's an even muddier pool to wade into...

[Archie]

Either I wasn't clear or you're missing the point. Where does it end.  It appears if someone is offended over something its ok to destroy it or remove it.  If thats the criteria for one person why is it different for someone else?  Is the liberal opinion all that matters?

So when these people saving us from themselves realize that Amercans killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese in WWII it will be ok to tear down all the memorials and omit it from history books?

[gehringer_2]

2 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

First of all I think we’re talking apples and chickpeas here. I see no problems with memorials to the fallen in proper places. Battlefields for one. I happen to like monuments to various units that fought on the battlefield. It gives me some perspective, on where the troops were positioned, number of casualties, etc. Monuments to those who served in various wars in towns and cities seem proper as they are mostly generic. I’ve attended enough Veterans Day events (as a community band member) to appreciate the ceremony.

I do think there needs to be more perspective on individual statues. There are very few people in the last 50 years or so who deserve one. On the other hand Yorktown, Va adding a statue of John Baptiste Donatien, Comte de Rochambeau to the trio of Washington, Adm. Francois Joseph Paul and the Marquis de Lafayette seems appropriate given their proximity to the battlefield.😉

'Generic' is the key. An monument like IwoJima is fundamentally anonymous, it to a type or class. I wouldn't class those with monuments clearly to individual people.

[gehringer_2]

5 minutes ago, Archie said:

Either I wasn't clear or you're missing the point. Where does it end.

LOL - the thing is I don't care where it ends. They can grind the faces off Rushmore and I wouldn't give a rat's ass one way or the other. Teaching, understanding and appreciating history and making heroic statuary to 'heroes' of a particular era have nothing to do with one another in the least.

Edited October 20, 2021 by gehringer_2

[Tigerbomb13]

Does it really matter?

[gehringer_2]

Look - someday veganism may become the dominant culture and they may think everyone who ate meat or owned a cattle ranch was a bad guy and needs to be 'de-memorialized' ( too bad for LBJ! ). And that will be their right. So they will put up statues to the great liberators of the ungulates of their day. But in a generation or two it will transpire that the great ungulate liberators were great sinners against some other standard that will apply 100 yrs later.  Dust in the wind - all of it.

[pfife]

38 minutes ago, Archie said:

Either I wasn't clear or you're missing the point. Where does it end.  It appears if someone is offended over something its ok to destroy it or remove it.  If thats the criteria for one person why is it different for someone else?  Is the liberal opinion all that matters?

So when these people saving us from themselves realize that Amercans killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese in WWII it will be ok to tear down all the memorials and omit it from history books?

it was liberals vandalizing the George Floyd statue?

[pfife]

19 minutes ago, Tigerbomb13 said:

Does it really matter?

it depends where he caucuses but it's a huge deal if he caucuses with the GOP.  

[Jim Cowan]

5 hours ago, CMRivdogs said:

My Virginia seventh grade social studies book told me most slaves loved their masters, and spent their free time singing and dancing. History is what you want it to be…and can convince the lowest common denominator 

 

Yeah, that's where those "Negro spirituals" came from in elementary school music period.