At 6/12/17 11:54 PM, Th-e wrote:
Hitler was evil. Stalin was evil. The people of the Confederacy, given the context, were not evil people, though they believed in idea that proved to be evil. Also, there are monuments and building and street names to people who were part of our nation's history but also committed acts that are evil by today's standards. Andrew Jackson (Trail of Tears and slave ownership) and Woodrow Wilson (a definite racist). Let's not forget George Washington owned slaves. I guess the Washington Monument is even more offensive than many of the Confederate monuments due to combining that and the phallic appearance of the monument.
Yes, he did own slaves. He also gave his slaves their freedom upon his death. Even Thomas Jefferson did the same thing. There were people like them who felt conflicted in owning them after fighting for their own independence from the British. But the point here is that Washington, and Jefferson, won the revolutionary war, and formed our government. They accomplished great things in this country. It's why they are remembered, even though they were hypocrites in some ways. But those inconsistencies can be overlooked considering the great amount of good they did. So what did the leaders of the Confederacy accomplish, other than starting a war by attacking a norther state, and then losing that war, and fighting to keep a group of people oppressed? Absolutely nothing. That's the difference. As to the other names you mentioned, they also accomplished a great deal more than those in the confederacy.
The Washington Monument is an obelisk, which has it's origins in ancient Egypt. It's basically a long square stone pillar with a pyramid on top. In ancient Egypt it was a symbol of the sun, or a ray from the sun, that contained great divine power, the power of a god. It was also considered to have astronomical properties. Other cultures began to use it, or take them out of Egypt. By the 17th century, into the 18th century, western countries became obsessed, almost cultish, with them. They became symbols of reason and order during the era of the enlightenment. They represented architecture, science, mathematics, astrology. They were part of a movement against known religions, like Christianity, with groups like the Freemasons, who rejected Christian doctrine and Christian control. Many of our founding forefathers were greatly influenced by this movement.
But, as you pointed out, the obelisk can often be looked upon as a phallic symbol. Well, that is according to anthropologists, who claim that anything that looks long and hard, and is revered by a culture, must represent the male's dick, a symbol of power and virility. And while there may be some truth to that, most people don't think about that shit, unless they have dirty minds, or are easily offended by long hard objects. Most people who look at the Washington monument only look at it as a beacon in which it represents the accomplishment of a man who was a pillar for the foundation that gave rise to this country.
No, I am not going to defend monuments to Kim Il Sung or his descendants, regardless of their age (though they probably will never come down, given that the regime is pretty much immortal due to Orwellian style rule plus nukes). Their actions were evil by the standards back then (and this was after Hitler), and are evil today, though some gulags would end up preserved as museums the way Auschwitz is preserved today if the regime fell. But this is not the same as the people of the Confederacy.
But you just said that slavery was evil. Isn't slavery the ultimate form of tyranny?
Also, why did someone in Arizona put up a Confederate monument in 2010?
Because it's needlessly complicated. Basically, it's a monument honoring 60 dead confederate soldiers, because the state unofficially sided with the confederacy, but did not participate in the slave trade. After the war, many northerners moved there, overtaking the population. After WW2, many southerners moved there and tried to revive the southern culture. But they began flying the Confederate flags at the capital, and building more confederate monuments, around the time of racial desegregation, and the civil rights movement. It was meant to send a strong message against racial integration.
Part of Landrieu's speech: "These monuments purposefully celebrate a fictional, sanitized Confederacy; ignoring the death, ignoring the enslavement, and the terror that it actually stood for."
Lets be clear. It's only sanitization if ALL Confederate monuments are removed. The deaths, or slavery, won't be forgotten with the removal of these monuments. And the monuments are not being destroyed, they are being taken down in prominent locations, which could then be moved to museums.
The confederate flag largely disappeared after the civil war, but was resurrected in full force during desegregation and the civil Rights movement. There is no doubt about the message they were sending over race relation at the time. People who flew that flag did it to show their position against any attempt at racial integration, and racial civil rights. They were prejudice, or outright racist.
Similarly, we also saw an increase in monuments dedicated to the confederacy since then, with many public schools and roads, named after confederate leaders. So, the intent is not about celebrating the individual, but what they represented. It's about glorifying a time when race was separated, and not mixed. These monuments could have been put into museums, but they were placed in public areas, along with the confederate flag, in the center of capitals and cities, and town, to be seen by all. And their intent was clear. It was a big "Fuck You" to other races. And this is what they often symbolize now, racism and hate, and not much else, especially history, as they will often claim anything but slavery, or how they started the war.