• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

All things Charlottesville (merged)

George Wallace said:
Good thing we aren't talking about Rome.  Just think of all the statues and memorials to less than benevolent Emperors that would be torn down.
Anytime I've been to Italy, I've never heard anyone say, "you know, those guys screwed us over, so we should be taking the statues down," not even from the most leftist folks I know there.  #ApplesVsFigs
 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
But that's just it- your personal views are wholly relevant since they colour how you view the world. Khadr and Lee, in respect to their nations, are the same (one could easily argue that Lee was worse since he commanded an army but I digress).
I'm still struggling to see Khdar and Canada's situation as relevant to this topic. I still see them as two very tenuously at best related issues. As I said in 150 years if we rename a CFB to Khdar I'll give you a better answer ;)

I pointed out that there is an irony that you are here defending Lee and the Confederates while having strong views on Khadr and islamic terrorism.
Because Canada isn't an Islamic state and the west vs Islam is different than USA North vs South 150 years ago.  Though I'll say that the US 150 years ago was probably still more socially advanced than Islam is today.


But it's the same sort of conflict that is driving most of the debate for the people who want to see the statues stay. The statues represent a fake, wholly invented (fake news if you will) and romanticized viewpoint of a south that never existed. So the question has to be begged- is it that they want to the statues to stay or is it that they want to maintain the fake views of the south during the pre-war era.
I'm not that read into the history of the south and all the shit that happened. I'm going to make an uneducated guess that at the time the statues meant something more, or perhaps differently, to them.

What the US should ask themselves is what's the purpose, driving factor and end result in tearing the statues down. Followed by possibly renaming US bases. Followed by possibly renaming streets and monuments. And targeting other things that a portion of the population finds offensive.  Will this result in making a mends for the past or is it going to inflame the current situation even more. What was the driving reason for the statue to be torn down? It was hardly a unanimous decision by the city council. 

What museum is this statue, or the others that were taken down, being moved in to?
 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
.......... The statues represent a fake, wholly invented (fake news if you will) and romanticized viewpoint of a south that never existed.

I would beg to differ.  In all likelihood these statues were erected in memory of the Fallen who came from those communities, at a time when they were still fresh in the minds of the locals in which they were erected.  The last Civil War veteran died 1959, so the erecting of these statues and memorials to the Fallen of a community, would definitely be still fresh in their minds in the 1920's. 

Will we see similar memorials and statues torn down in the next few decades because someone found the fighting of "Imperialist Wars" such as the Boer War, or Vietnam, or any other war, offensive?  If a community erects a memorial to their Fallen, does it really fall on 'outsiders' to be offended.  I have seen many memorials in Germany for the Fallen of both World Wars.  They aren't glorifying any particular movement.  Same goes for these memorials to Lee, Jackson, Davis and others.....They don't in anyway glorify Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, or the KKK. 
 
George Wallace said:
Will we see similar memorials and statues torn down in the next few decades because someone found the fighting of "Imperialist Wars" such as the Boer War, or Vietnam, or any other war, offensive? 

Not torn down, yet, but vandalized.

The Bomber Command Memorial has been repeatedly vandalized.
https://www.rafbf.org/news-and-blogs/bomber-command-memorial-vandalism-%E2%80%93-update

So has the "Bomber" Harris statue. It had to be kept under 24-hour guard for a period of months as it was often damaged by protesters and vandals.
 

Attachments

  • harris.jpg
    harris.jpg
    111.2 KB · Views: 128
  • bombermem.jpg
    bombermem.jpg
    110.7 KB · Views: 125
Pikcing up on George W's riff re:  different approaches to protest Fascists/Nazis, shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42) ...
Antifa Needs a New Way to Fight the Alt-Right
James Braxton Peterson, fortune.com, 17 Aug 2017

Antifa—political shorthand for the leftist anti-fascist movement—has had a consistent, if at times confusing, presence on the frontlines of movement politics and civic agitation during some of the most spectacular demonstrations held over the last few years. The movement has now burst out into the open after its participation in fighting white nationalists during the violence in Charlottesville, Va. last weekend.

It’s important to be clear that the violence of Nazism is historical record. The violence of American slavery that the Confederacy fought to preserve is a matter of historical record. And the vehicular attack that killed Heather Heyer and injured many more is now a matter of record too.

But it also must be acknowledged that Antifa played a part in the violence in Charlottesville. Antifa and the conservative media attention that it will continue to draw raises questions about the effectiveness of militant tactics in organized efforts to challenge the violence of fascism. To paraphrase an old parable: A witness watching two men fighting from a distance has no idea who started the conflict. Antifa activists would do well to consider that most Americans watch events unfold from afar and almost always through some sort of media.

That mediation can often confound any movement’s message. If Antifa is actually anti-fascist (and this ideology must be distinguished from those who are anarchists), then its goal is to defeat the autocratic, dictatorial, nationalistic, and racist forces that animate and infect certain aspects of the American body politic. Because fascism in America will often look militant and because the “Unite the Right” folks are often well-armed, those who would claim to be Antifa might need to embrace tactics that are actually antithetical to those used by their political opponents.

Non-violent resistance has a long and effective history in fighting racism and extremism in this country. The “both sides are to blame” argument shouldn’t carry much weight in thinking about all that happened in Charlottesville, but it has gained legitimacy because Antifa is deliberately not peaceful. If, when we look at the images of conflict between protesters and counter-protesters, we can rarely distinguish between the two, that presents a problem for anti-fascist activists.

But what should be more troubling to Antifa is that its strategy of participating in violence provides a unique opening for right-wing extremists. We are hearing more and more about Antifa not because its anti-fascist message is being disseminated more effectively. Instead we are hearing about it as the bogeyman of white supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and other far-right groups.

Antifa is, in this context, the violent provocateur of the alt-right. Unless and until the left acknowledges this political vulnerability, being able to distinguish Antifa from its ideological opponents will increasingly become a blurry enterprise.

James Braxton Peterson is professor of English and director of Africana studies at Lehigh University. He hosts The Remix podcast on WHYY and is an MSNBC contributor.
 
George Wallace said:
... In all likelihood these statues were erected in memory of the Fallen who came from those communities, at a time when they were still fresh in the minds of the locals in which they were erected ...
Or maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe not (source) ...
blog_confederate_monuments2.gif
 
milnews.ca said:
Or maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe not (source) ...
blog_confederate_monuments2.gif

Matches what I said, when you look at when any such memorial was raised.....40 years after a war is not a long period.  The Vimy Memorial was dedicated in the late 1930' to a war twenty years earlier.  When Veterans of those wars are still numerous, and the finances and will is there, I would imagine that that is when the memorials are build.
 
That graph tends to imply and support what I've read (repeatedly): the establishment of many pro-Confederate landmarks was a raised middle finger ("cultural dick waving"), not a genuine commemoration.

As many are presently arguing, the elimination of symbols of the Confederacy doesn't have to lead to the elimination of symbols of everything that someone, somewhere doesn't like.  But the problem isn't whether reasonable people can draw a line, because they can.  The problem lies with the activists who will finish one project and move onto the next and continue applying pressure.  All they need is one sympathetic administration - municipal, state, federal - and they get what they want.  Physical heritage, once removed, is gone - there is no "undo" button.

So what the reasonable people have to ask is: how far short of the line we don't want to cross (with respect to removal, renaming, etc) must we really draw a line to provide a buffer?  At some point, activists will have to be firmly told "No; f* off."
 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
As for the armchair quarterback thing, sure, but I can back up my premises. can you?

Sure - Lee had a fraction of the resources of the Union and the last place to surrender, Appomattox, is only 200 km from Washington.  That was after most of the Confederacy was occupied.  If he was no good, he was better than most Confederate generals.  The reputation of generals is often as good as the last book.  I've done a lot of reading om Canadian generals and opinions are all over the place.  In the end, bad generals lose and good generals win.  By that measure, I guess you are correct.
 
Harriett Beecher Stowe - Uncle Tom's Cabin - "Both North and South have been guilty before God; and the Christian church has a heavy account to answer. "

Harriett Beecher Stowe saw no innocents in the slavery issue.  These facts are just prior to the Civil War.  Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, D.C. and a whole whack of Territories in the Union had slavery.  Slaves found in the North were required to be returned to their owners.  Residents of Northern states, including banks often owned or repossessed slaves in other states.  Speaking in generalities as every state was different but black people couldn't vote, could not sue white people, could not testify in court or had limited credence.

I love the argument that Grant had no slaves because they were his father-in-laws but Lee had slaves because they were his father-in-laws.  It's all history, why do we want to relive it and re-fight the battles.  The Soviets killed most of my second cousins.  I don't blame Putin or some statue.
 
Except the soviets aren't here still oppressing your or trying to oppress your family.  Experiences may vary...
 
Rocky Mountains said:
Sure - Lee had a fraction of the resources of the Union and the last place to surrender, Appomattox, is only 200 km from Washington.  That was after most of the Confederacy was occupied.  If he was no good, he was better than most Confederate generals.  The reputation of generals is often as good as the last book.  I've done a lot of reading om Canadian generals and opinions are all over the place.  In the end, bad generals lose and good generals win.  By that measure, I guess you are correct.

Because of the mentality of states' rights over the federation's powers, the South had a fragmented and totally inefficient supply and reinforcement system which greatly hindered all their commanders.

More importantly, Lee was better than most Union commanders. His results reflect times of brilliance and times bordering on incompetence frequently based on how well he understood his opponent and the ground chosen for the fight.

Peninsula and Seven Days campaign - McClellan was totally outclassed and Lee fought a masterful campaign;

Second Bull Run - excellent use of his subordinate commanders, Pope lost sight of one half of Lee's army and forced to retire when it showed up;

Maryland and Antietem - despite the fact that McClellan had Lee's battle plan and that Lees forces were divided, McClellan's characteristic hesitation allowed Lee to slip out of a situation where he should have had him in the bag;

Fredericksburg - Burnside's hesitation and disorganization (lack of pontoons for river crossing) allowed Lee to mass his forces on ground that was virtually impregnable;

Chancellorsville - excellent opening moves by Hooker that caught Lee by surprise, brilliantly executed flanking march by Jackson that routed Hooker's flanks;

Gettysburg - poor command and control by Lee, loss of control of cavalry and thereby intelligence on Meade's army, poorly conceived and executed assaults on each of three days, *** saved by torrential storm that allowed him to withdraw bulk of army back into the South on the fourth, excellent use of resources and ground by Meade;

Denouement against Grant - effective but waning defensive fight by Lee against well orchestrated offensive campaign (Cold Harbor excepted) by Grant/Meade. Lee doomed due to lack of resources.

Lee ran hot and cold but unquestioningly greatly added to the morale of his soldiers (from initially being "Granny Lee" and the "King of spades" [because of his frequent digging in]). In addition, because he was responsible for the most populated (white) and important theatre of operations he eventually became the most beloved of the Southern commanders and thus a symbol of the Confederacy well after the war.

:cheers:
 
Remius said:
Except the soviets aren't here still oppressing your or trying to oppress your family.  Experiences may vary...

Neither are the real Nazis who killed members of my family.
 
Looks like the action has shifted to Boston this weekend. Probably very few, if any, Confederate statues there to defend.

FJAG said:
Interesting article about recent Neo-Nazi march in Berlin and how Germans handle things:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/police-separate-500-neo-nazis-opponents-berlin-demo-49308299

Among those demonstrating against the neo-Nazis was Jossa Bentja from the western city of Koblenz. The 64-year-old cited the clashes in Charlottesville and her parents' experience of living under the Nazis as her reason for coming.

"The rats are coming out of the sewers," she said. "(President Donald) Trump has made it socially acceptable."

WOW



Arnold Schwarzenegger had some friendly advice on racism.  :)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/19/watch-arnold-schwarzenegger-has-friendly-advice-donald-trump/

Some guy on TV said, "Tell them to try bringing their sh#t to the Bronx."  :)
 
I found this interesting on Funny or Die.

It's the "ballad of Robert E Lee's Statue".

I found it interesting, not because it's particularly good or funny (in essence the statue is asking to be taken down because Lee wasn't good to his slaves) but because the ratting of this thing is split roughly 50/50 between "funny" and "die". I presume that pretty much is indicative of the way folks here in this forum and in the US in general view the question of the removal of these statues.

[cheers]
 
Rocky Mountains said:
... It's all history, why do we want to relive it and re-fight the battles ...
Then you're OK with the Riel statues & Riel Day holidays, right?
Rocky Mountains said:
... The Soviets killed most of my second cousins.  I don't blame Putin or some statue.
YMMV from that of any relatives you may have in whatever "old country" they live in -- many folks in the former USSR are still touchy about statues.
mariomike said:
... Looks like the action has shifted to Boston this weekend. Probably very few, if any, Confederate statues there to defend ...
Yeah, funny that.
 
George Wallace said:
Matches what I said, when you look at when any such memorial was raised.....40 years after a war is not a long period.  The Vimy Memorial was dedicated in the late 1930' to a war twenty years earlier.  When Veterans of those wars are still numerous, and the finances and will is there, I would imagine that that is when the memorials are build.

But it doesn't... in any way, shape, or form. The war ended in 1865, so a statue raised in 1920 would be 55 years since the end of the war. If a person enrolled at 18 than that would make them 73.

The irony is that Lee himself didn't want memorials built after the war and preferred to have the south move on. He stated when asked, "As regards the erection of such a monument as is contemplated; my conviction is, that however grateful it would be to the feelings of the South, the attempt in the present condition of the Country, would have the effect of retarding, instead of accelerating its accomplishment; & of continuing, if not adding to, the difficulties under which the Southern people labour.." While later in the same text he noted that such statues could be erected in "better times" the question has to be asked- What would be better times?

The "Lost Cause" revisionist history started in the 1920s after Lee's death by members of KKK and other southern organizations that favoured segregation or a return to the "good old days" (which weren't actually very good... the south was extremely underdeveloped and poor). The statue in Charlottesville, Va went up in 1924, at the height of this revisionist history period (or for the Trump fans in the house, the "fake news" period).

Lee was a complex character. He both celebrated the end of slavery but noted that black southerners weren't capable of acting as a real race. His anti-slavery stance seems to be associated with the post war period, so there is a strong possibility that this change of heart was related to his need to maintain his lifestyle in a reconstructionist south rather than any change of opinion, though this is impossible to prove with any veracity.

that said, whatever the motivation for the statues, the fact that Neo-Nazis are the one taking the most offence to them being taken down should all but end any argument over what they stand for today.
 
Rocky Mountains said:
Sure - Lee had a fraction of the resources of the Union and the last place to surrender, Appomattox, is only 200 km from Washington.  That was after most of the Confederacy was occupied.  If he was no good, he was better than most Confederate generals.  The reputation of generals is often as good as the last book.  I've done a lot of reading om Canadian generals and opinions are all over the place.  In the end, bad generals lose and good generals win.  By that measure, I guess you are correct.

Lee had some success in the early going as he was combating inferior union generals. McClellan was a poor tactician who was meek in battle. Lee's deficiency was primarily at the strategic level. The strategic situation for the South was simple- they didn't need to "win" the war, they just needed to not lose it. The British were both very very willing to support the South's secession for industrial reasons (British reliance on southern cotton) and geo-strategic reasons (the British as early as 1780 knew that the US would eventually be a superior nation due to population and economic potential. The British attempted to stop US expansion basically since the republic was formed, including supporting the Texas Republic as an independent entity to claiming the west coast. Moreover, the Monroe Document, though issued by the US was really a joint Brit-US policy that maintained the US as a junior partner in the British world order in return for the US promise to stop Spain and France from reclaiming old colonies in the post Napoleonic period).

From a strategic stance, Lee's success can be seen as being similar to that of the Japanese and Germans in WW2. The majority of army bases were in the south, and the majority of the regular army was from the south. Further, the militia system in the north was no better than it had been in 1812 while the militia system in the south was far stronger. When war came, the south was more prepared than the north from an army perspective (opposite for navy), so Lee was able to take advantage of Northern lack of preparedness. The key mistake was the invasion of the north and the defeat at Gettysburg. Lee was trained in west point to fight under Clausewitzian terms in a Napoleonic fashion- be aggressive and seek the decisive battle (austerlitz, waterloo, etc). This is what he did-he marched towards Washington hoping that the North would fully engage and he would destroy their field army and have them surrender. However, strategically, he lost support of the British (and French, who still hoped to reclaim some French territory... New Orleans had only been in the US for 50 years at that point).  when he invaded and lost at Gettysburg as the British saw the overall situation and realized that the South had no chance, so they were better to stay neutral and keep their Monroe agreement. Further, the British knew that once the north was invaded that the North would become more engaged- the war changed from a simple defence of the south to an aggressive war.

lee's army of the Northern Virginia survived because the Union didn't want to take it on directly. The Anaconda strategy saw the Union encircle the south, including the battles on the Mississippi at Vicksburg and New Orleans. The Assaults that came against Lee later in the war were academic because by that time Lee had allowed any chance of breaking the blockade and encirclement of the south to stop.
 
Back
Top