Current Events > Should Confederate statues be torn down?

(+) Yeah! (+)

What are CE's thoughts on this?

---

taken down fuck yeah they lost they dont get to celebrate that shit put all the civil war shit in a museum

They belong in the trash museum

---

they shouldn't be destroyed.
To erase them from history is an insult to those who suffered from slavery. The symbols should be preserved to remind people what came before and what shouldn't be repeated.

Destroying artifacts is a trait done by tyrants (isis, mongols, the chinese communists)

---

Civil War museums have also been targets of vandals so let's just forget that ever happened so we can have another one.

---

confederates were traitors and pro slavery that shit is vile so taken down or tore down

Racists and traitors should not be glorified.

Weren't most of the confederate monuments put in place during the Jim Crow era?

---

Yes. The confederacy were literally traitors who wanted to leave America. Does the UK have statues of George Washington all over the place? The only people who celebrate them are racists no matter how hard they try to claim its about history. If someone in my family was a murderer I wouldnt celebrate their history just because we have the same blood. You cant cry about the flag being disrespected while also celebrating the confederacy.

---

Erasing history is a very bad idea. It literally benefits nobody because it's not like destroying these statues erases what they are a memorial of.

They should be in Civil War/Civil Rights museums.

---

Statues aren't typically how history is remembered. We have books for that kind of thing. And the internet.

Removing statues doesn't erase history at all.

---

Burn them down NOW!

---

we have a reminder everytime we see a southerners truck big ass confederate flag

CableZL posted...

Statues aren't typically how history is remembered. We have books for that kind of thing. And the internet.

Removing statues doesn't erase history at all.

Yeah seriously, anyone who thinks statues glorifying racist traitors as "history" ain't right in the head.

VipaGTS posted...

Yes. The confederacy were literally traitors who wanted to leave America. Does the UK have statues of George Washington all over the place? The only people who celebrate them are racists no matter how hard they try to claim its about history. If someone in my family was a murderer I wouldnt celebrate their history just because we have the same blood. You cant cry about the flag being disrespected while also celebrating the confederacy.

Never forget when george washington and the continental army fought back the british in the great american city of wolverhampton

---

Depends on the statue? Actual historical artifacts should be preserved, but Jim Crow era crap generally doesn't have any such value, and was put there specifically to re-enforce white supremacy, so they can melt it down and erect a statue of, I dunno, the town's favorite horror movie monster, in its place.

---

No, youre not erasing history anyway. Not sure about yall but I learned about the civil war thru reading, not by looking at random statues.

---

Personally I think it's wrong to erase statues and monuments to the men who fought in that war on either side with honor and courage. To erase that history is to erase our need to remember. Maybe we should tear down statues of FDR and Harry Truman for their racist and bigoted views. Let's erase all history of our past presidents and leaders who don't think like we do. At what point would the justification end?

---

LethalAffinity posted...

Personally I think it's wrong to erase statues and monuments to the men who fought in that war on either side with honor and courage. To erase that history is to erase our need to remember. Maybe we should tear down statues of FDR and Harry Truman for their racist and bigoted views. Let's erase all history of our past presidents and leaders who don't think like we do. At what point would the justification end?

I still don't understand how removing a statue is erasing history. Removing a statue does not at all remove our ability to learn about history.

---

Why does the confederacy have statues they lost we gave them to much power they should have had none they were traitors

LethalAffinity posted...

Personally I think it's wrong to erase statues and monuments to the men who fought in that war on either side with honor and courage. To erase that history is to erase our need to remember. Maybe we should tear down statues of FDR and Harry Truman for their racist and bigoted views. Let's erase all history of our past presidents and leaders who don't think like we do. At what point would the justification end?

no one is erasing history. there is a difference between celebrating it and acknowledging it. Why should we celebrate traitors with statues?

---

LethalAffinity posted...

Personally I think it's wrong to erase statues and monuments to the men who fought in that war on either side with honor and courage. To erase that history is to erase our need to remember. Maybe we should tear down statues of FDR and Harry Truman for their racist and bigoted views. Let's erase all history of our past presidents and leaders who don't think like we do. At what point would the justification end?

Remind me when FDR and Truman fought in a war to keep the status quo of slavery.

CableZL posted...

Statues aren't typically how history is remembered. We have books for that kind of thing. And the internet.

Removing statues doesn't erase history at all.

History books and the internet are secondary or tertiary sources. Statues are primary sources. Do you know that people who burned books had the exact same mentality as you because they believed they were able to tell history how it really happened.

What possible argument is there to destroying them over putting them in museums when they represent multiple different eras of American history (Civil War, Jim Crow, Civil Rights, and modern era). Why do you think museums even exist?

---

Im tentatively okay with actual battlefield monuments remaining in place, but theres literally no reason for commemorating the Confederacy in like, general public space.

---

The third option.

---

Statues should be reserved for people who have earned it. National heroes. A racist slaveowner is not a hero.

---

DoctorPiranha3 posted...

Remind me when FDR and Truman fought in a war to keep the status quo of slavery.

False equivalency is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning lethal knows this

Damn_Underscore posted...

History books and the internet are secondary or tertiary sources. Statues are primary sources. Do you know that people who burned books had the exact same mentality as you because they believed they were able to tell history how it really happened.

What possible argument is there to destroying them over putting them in museums when they represent multiple different eras of American history (Civil War, Jim Crow, Civil Rights, and modern era). Why do you think museums even exist?

How are statues considered a primary way to learn about history? The internet and books are much more accessible thsn having to travel to a certain location to look at a statue.

Books and the internet would have much more on depth info about history than any statue.

---

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544266880/confederate-statues-were-built-to-further-a-white-supremacist-future

---

MrToothHasYou posted...

Im tentatively okay with actual battlefield monuments remaining in place, but theres literally no reason for commemorating the Confederacy in like, general public space.

Memorials to the war dead shouldn't be taken down. I hope we can all agree on that

CableZL posted...

How are statues considered a primary way to learn about history? The internet and books are much more accessible thsn having to travel to a certain location to look at a statue.

Books and the internet would have much more on depth info about history than any statue.

I think what he means is that a book is written about a thing, but a statue is part of that thing. Bad way of describing it sorry

---

Yeah, but they should be in a museum. You don't have to like what they represent, but you cannot deny that they are a part of history

---

The arguments posted in this topic are all great reasons why Confederate statues should be taken down from public gathering areas, but no one has given a good reason why these statues should be destroyed rather than put in museums (because there is none)

---

I think I'd be more accepting of confederate monuments if most of them weren't erected during the Jim Crow era.

---

RoadsterUFO posted...

Losers and traitors do not deserve participation awards, especially ones that were made decades after the Civil War ended for the purposes of intimidating black people. The Democratic Party was the party of slavery, the KKK, and the Confederacy, so no Republican should take issue with the removal of racist Confederate mementos that represented opposition to these here United States of America and the first Republican President Abraham Lincoln.

Why are you turning this into a partisan issue rather than a historical one


---

Damn_Underscore posted...

The arguments posted in this topic are all great reasons why Confederate statues should be taken down from public gathering areas, but no one has given a good reason why these statues should be destroyed rather than put in museums (because there is none)

I am okay with them being in museums but destroyed? Yeah I don't understand that.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

The arguments posted in this topic are all great reasons why Confederate statues should be taken down from public gathering areas, but no one has given a good reason why these statues should be destroyed rather than put in museums (because there is none)

I suppose a good reason for destroying them is that the message sent by their destruction has more value than any value they provide through preservation in a museum

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

The arguments posted in this topic are all great reasons why Confederate statues should be taken down from public gathering areas, but no one has given a good reason why these statues should be destroyed rather than put in museums (because there is none)

AlisLandale posted...

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544266880/confederate-statues-were-built-to-further-a-white-supremacist-future

If they go to a museum, it should be to one specifically detailing the history of white supremacy and its influence as a shit stain on American society.

they dont deserve to be legitimized by being made part of war exhibits

---

I was always taught that we learn history so we can learn from our mistakes. If we destroy history there's nothing to look back on and remember. Humans are imperfect, to say the very least. To have reminders, even if it remains in a museum of our greatest fuck ups, will provide guidance to the future of what we were and what we can become in a civilized world. It shouldn't be celebrated, but it needs to be remembered.

---

Taking them down and putting 'em in a museum sounds nice.

---

Rika_Furude posted...

I think what he means is that a book is written about a thing, but a statue is part of that thing. Bad way of describing it sorry

Yes.

In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called an original source) is an artifact, document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study.

In scholarship, a secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. A secondary source contrasts with a primary source, which is an original source of the information being discussed; a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document created by such a person.

A tertiary source is an index or textual consolidation of primary and secondary sources. Some tertiary sources are not to be cited in academic research. Rather, they should be used as an aid to find other sources.

---

CableZL posted...

I think I'd be more accepting of confederate monuments if most of them weren't erected during the Jim Crow era.

they arent civil war staues they are exactly this shit

AlisLandale posted...

they dont deserve to be legitimized by being made part of war exhibits

So you'd actively censor one of the bloodiest wars in American history from being in any museum except a White Supremacy History museum?

---

Rika_Furude posted...

I think what he means is that a book is written about a thing, but a statue is part of that thing. Bad way of describing it sorry

Still, a book or the internet are much better ways to learn about history than statues in public spaces. Much more accessible, much more in depth information, no travel required, etc.

---

LethalAffinity posted...

So you'd actively censor one of the bloodiest wars in American history from being in any museum except a White Supremacy History museum?

This is how you spot a troll.

read the article. It details how these statues are not a part of Americas history and instead are part of a white supremacist gaslighting campaign.


---

AlisLandale posted...

If they go to a museum, it should be to one specifically detailing the history of white supremacy and its influence as a shit stain on American society.

they dont deserve to be legitimized by being made part of war exhibits

That link is what I was talking about. A great reason to take them down from public gathering areas, in no way justification to destroy them.

And if a community decides to take down a confederate statue, there is no reason to think that it would turn around and glorify it in a museum rather than present it in a sobering way.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called an original source) is an artifact, document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study.

So again, most of these confederate monuments were erected during the Jim Crow era, which means they weren't created at the time under study. That means the most of them aren't primary sources at all.

---

They are primary sources of the era they were constructed in, objectively. They are also primary sources of the modern era because the controversy about whether they should be taken down or not only started recently.

You are entirely misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting my argument.

---

Yes.

---