Confederate Streets and Monuments

[Caecus]

There is currently a lawsuit against the US Army regarding the rebranding or renaming of two major streets in New York. The streets are named after Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. 

The contention is that some see the glorification of Confederate leaders and other Confederate memorials and statues discreetly promoting the ideology of racialized slavery. The US army sees it as a means to honor those who fought in the civil war and bring together a spirit of reconciliation in the post-war era. 

 

Should we rename these streets? Should we remove statues and memorials dedicated to the Confederate leaders and those who fought for the Confederacy? 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/08/us/army-keeps-confederate-street-names-trnd/index.html

[ComradeMilton]

Total removal. Unless we're doing all American traitors in which we should definitely be whipping together a statue to honor Benedict Arnold

[Thalmor]

1 hour ago, Caecus said:

The contention is that some see the glorification of Confederate leaders and other Confederate memorials and statues discreetly promoting the ideology of racialized slavery. The US army sees it as a means to honor those who fought in the civil war and bring together a spirit of reconciliation in the post-war era.

 

I much prefer the opinions of the great men and women of the U.S. Army over the 90-lbs beta male cucks and 300-lbs land whales with daddy issues of the other side.

Those memorials have remained for years and have done literally nothing. They only want to tear them down because our society is currently in a wave of politically correct nonsense. Only, once the wave ends, the damage has already been done and there's no changing that.

[WISD0MTREE]

3 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

Total removal. Unless we're doing all American traitors in which we should definitely be whipping together a statue to honor Benedict Arnold

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. 

4 hours ago, Caecus said:

Should we rename these streets?

Should we remove statues and memorials dedicated to the Confederate leaders and those who fought for the Confederacy? 

I'm against renaming any street to anything due to maps, GPS, etc. becoming outdated for no reason at all. (Except in Cities Skylines. I'm trying to get the achievement for renaming 100 roads. It's way harder more time consuming than it sounds.) 

I don't think removing monuments/statues would be beneficial. The Civil War was a very defining war in history and America's bloodiest war. Removing those statues would remove the opportunity for people to learn about the war. The American Council of Trustees and Alumni surveyed Americans and half of the participants didn't know when the Civil War took place. I do think adding plaques with more historical context would help society learn about the event/person. 

Oh, and I'm against cashiers giving you ten dimes instead of a dollar bill. That happened today and really pissed me off. 

[ComradeMilton]

So if we get traitors do they all get statues and stuff? The Confederacy engaged in a war of aggression against the United States. The term for them in the current time is traitor. Maybe we could do a Benedict Arnold statue with Robert Hansen, Aldrich Ames, bin Laden and so on. This has nothing to do with political correctness. No one decorates and celebrates the time when people attacking their own country specifically to aid opponents of that country. If one traitorous memorial is there to, uh, celebrate? traitors we might as well make sure to do all of them.

How are statues celebrating traitors harming the ability to learn? Germany has so far yet to make a statue to Hitler and they seem to still remember the whole Nazi thing. If you're  learning about history by street names and statues you're not going to lose anything you wouldn't already not know.

[丂ħ̧i̧₣ɫ̵γ͘ ̶™]

Confederates got pardoned for the most part and reintegrated into American society.

Bin Laden was muj, all he gets is a 5.56 NATO, the most brass America should be willing to spend on him

G-Wash got a statue in London.

 

Edited August 9, 2017 by Shifty Stranger

[ComradeMilton]

Is there a practical difference? Andersonville was way more gruesome than anything I've heard from other traitors we're apparently going to build statues of them and stuff.

[Fukataka]

What is with the left's fetish on destroying things historically significant or anything that hurts their feelings?

Let's remove statues of George Washington because he had slaves and slavery is bad.

Editing history is bad and there's some pieces of history thats already being vandalised or lost because it got destroyed.

[Caecus]

7 hours ago, WISD0MTREE said:

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. 

I'm against renaming any street to anything due to maps, GPS, etc. becoming outdated for no reason at all. (Except in Cities Skylines. I'm trying to get the achievement for renaming 100 roads. It's way harder more time consuming than it sounds.) 

I don't think removing monuments/statues would be beneficial. The Civil War was a very defining war in history and America's bloodiest war. Removing those statues would remove the opportunity for people to learn about the war. The American Council of Trustees and Alumni surveyed Americans and half of the participants didn't know when the Civil War took place. I do think adding plaques with more historical context would help society learn about the event/person. 

Oh, and I'm against cashiers giving you ten dimes instead of a dollar bill. That happened today and really pissed me off. 

To be entirely fair, if you asked when ANY war that America was involved in took place (and yes, I am including the war of 1812), half of the participants wouldn't know when it started. That's more of an indication of the poor education system in the US, not any particular collective forgetfulness regarding the Civil War. 

9 hours ago, Thalmor said:

I much prefer the opinions of the great men and women of the U.S. Army over the 90-lbs beta male cucks and 300-lbs land whales with daddy issues of the other side.

Those memorials have remained for years and have done literally nothing. They only want to tear them down because our society is currently in a wave of politically correct nonsense. Only, once the wave ends, the damage has already been done and there's no changing that.

On the contrary, you could argue that the only reason why these monuments and memorials were allowed to be erected in the first place was "politically correct nonsense." The post-war era still saw a cultural geographic division between the North and South that wasn't bridged until at least the Spanish-American war at the beginning of the 20th century. Most of these monuments and memorials, such as the one found in Arlington National Cemetery, were allowed to be built in the spirit of reconciliation following the Spanish-American war. It was a symbolic, "politically correct" gesture of unity, despite lasting tensions between the two sections being divided over the issue of Jim Crow and the economy. 

11 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

Total removal. Unless we're doing all American traitors in which we should definitely be whipping together a statue to honor Benedict Arnold

Firstly, there is a monument to honor Benedict Arnold, primarily because he was hands-down the best American general during the revolution before he tried to sell West Point down the Hudson. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boot_Monument

Second, these monuments also symbolize the blood and sacrifice of those who died in America's most bloody conflict. By allowing Southerners to bury their dead next to Unionists, or naming streets after major figures of the time unifies a divided nation. 

Thirdly, these monuments and street names were dedicated to honoring individuals who fought and led men into battle, not any particular ideology they stood for. Besides, technically the Union was in a war of aggression against the Confederacy, primarily to bring back the union together. The irony is that the founding fathers envisioned that a free people under a free government had the right to revolt when said government no longer represented their rights. They just never imagined it would be along geographic lines and based on the economy. You could argue that the Confederacy (in accordance to our beliefs in the right for a free people to choose a free government) were not "traitors."

[ComradeMilton]

6 hours ago, Fukataka said:

What is with the left's fetish on destroying things historically significant or anything that hurts their feelings? What's with conservatives lacking arguments of any sort aside from attempted stereotypes?

Let's remove statues of George Washington because he had slaves and slavery is bad. K.

Editing history is bad and there's some pieces of history thats already being vandalised or lost because it got destroyed. Are you suggesting knowledge of the Civil War will disappear without statues or street names? Again, if that's the source of your knowledge of it that's kind of sad.

 

3 hours ago, Caecus said:

Firstly, there is a monument to honor Benedict Arnold, primarily because he was hands-down the best American general during the revolution before he tried to sell West Point down the Hudson. We should tear that down too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boot_Monument

Second, these monuments also symbolize the blood and sacrifice of those who died in America's most bloody conflict. By allowing Southerners to bury their dead next to Unionists, or naming streets after major figures of the time unifies a divided nation. When has it done that? The confederates ran for political office as Democrats into the end of the millennium. There'd be no blood if the traitors hadn't begun a war.

Thirdly, these monuments and street names were dedicated to honoring individuals who fought and led men into battle (against the United States), not any particular ideology they stood for. Besides, technically the Union was in a war of aggression against the Confederacy, primarily to bring back the union together. That was the argument and it's just not accurate or valuable. The irony is that the founding fathers envisioned that a free people under a free government had the right to revolt when said government no longer represented their rights. They just never imagined it would be along geographic lines and based on the economy. You could argue that the Confederacy (in accordance to our beliefs in the right for a free people to choose a free government) were not "traitors." You could. You'd be wrong if you did so, but you could

If it's good to highlight traitors to the United States we have a pretty solid list of objectionable people to use for future street names and statues. Perhaps some for Stalin, a couple of Mao, maybe one of Kim Il-Sung (none of these are precisely traitors, but more or less as objectionable). We should definitely have all of the spies working against the United States included, including all of the spies who worked so hard against the country. Those poor traitors spilled blood and apparently our system of learning history is street names and statues so I guess a good education would require a good deal of work to properly.

 

[Caecus]

One of the reasons why I don't like responding is because I can't quote. 

Benedict Arnold ironically did more good than bad for the country he betrayed. Granted, he wasn't entirely successful in betraying the US, but that's besides the point. The monument is dedicated to his services he did before he was commander at West Point. 

Once the confederacy dissolved and the rebelling states reintegrated back into the US, it's hard not to have state senators and representatives show up in congress, seeing as how all states had representation there. 

"when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government" - Declaration of Independence. Not right, duty. Forgive me, I misspoke. 

The point is, honoring these leaders is a concession to the South, of which a portion of their people still hold a cultural attachment to the Confederacy and their leaders. The reason why the US Army is hesitant to remove those names is because of its original goal: that of unifying a nation divided by America's bloodiest war. Besides, the US army gets most of its recruits in the South and California, typically from America's poorest and most likely to be least educated. Changing the name might insult some of those people. 

Edited August 9, 2017 by Caecus

[Thalmor]

9 hours ago, Caecus said:

On the contrary, you could argue that the only reason why these monuments and memorials were allowed to be erected in the first place was "politically correct nonsense." The post-war era still saw a cultural geographic division between the North and South that wasn't bridged until at least the Spanish-American war at the beginning of the 20th century. Most of these monuments and memorials, such as the one found in Arlington National Cemetery, were allowed to be built in the spirit of reconciliation following the Spanish-American war. It was a symbolic, "politically correct" gesture of unity, despite lasting tensions between the two sections being divided over the issue of Jim Crow and the economy.

 

You basically just made an argument against tearing them down that I can totally get behind. Gucci o7

[Doktor Avalanche]

21 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

Total removal. Unless we're doing all American traitors in which we should definitely be whipping together a statue to honor Benedict Arnold

Why?

People need to realize life is full of stuff that in one form or another is offensive. Erasing history and its monuments only makes the future uneducated, though right now we coddle our Colleges with letting them grade themselves now and provide safe spaces to avoid hearing others making use of free speech.

The Civil War was not Good vs. Evil. It was about opposing views and the poor way both sides handled their differences. In the end, we lost on all sides. Monuments are made to honor these people from all sides of this conflict because both sides make up the whole of our nation regardless of what side you choose to side with historically.

Should I cause a ruckus and demand every US monument to every Injun hunter and killer be torn down because I find what they did offensive? Mt. Rushmore would then be nonexistent considering all of them promoted Native Genocide. Never going to happen.  Social Justice Warriors are not affected by this so they will never take up the cause. They only help their own kind which is mostly elitist white kids and their token non-white friends.

[Caecus]

1 hour ago, Thalmor said:

You basically just made an argument against tearing them down that I can totally get behind. Gucci o7

I wouldn't be so sure. Political correctness is killing our nation. Libtards insisted that political correctness is good for our country, I don't believe so. Googling political correctness gets you this definition:

"the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against."

These monuments are the embodiment of political correctness. They are there because the US government is unwilling to exclude, marginalize, or insult the socially disadvantaged KKK and rebel confederate sympathizers. The KKK supposedly had to hide their identity or risk being discriminated against and excluded from businesses, employment, education, and social welfare benefits. But the government has been kowtowing to these people for too long. In the so-called "spirit of reconciliation," the US government allowed these people to put up monuments of their terrorist leaders (which have killed tens of thousands of Americans). The US government ignored the crimes of these terrorists when they lynch people. The US government turned a blind eye to their unjust laws which restrict citizen's rights. All in the name of political correctness and placating these so-called "marginalized" people, so they can feel like they are part of the US. I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton and Benghazi was involved in some ridiculous affirmative action bullshit for these "socially disadvantaged" people. 

Political correctness is killing our country. We need fight back against political correctness and the libtards before it destroys our country. A good first step is to take down these monuments to political correctness. What say you?

[ComradeMilton]

7 hours ago, Caecus said:

One of the reasons why I don't like responding is because I can't quote. 

Benedict Arnold ironically did more good than bad for the country he betrayed. Granted, he wasn't entirely successful in betraying the US, but that's besides the point. The monument is dedicated to his services he did before he was commander at West Point. Neat. Still doesn't change his more serious activities.

Once the confederacy dissolved and the rebelling states reintegrated back into the US, it's hard not to have state senators and representatives show up in congress, seeing as how all states had representation there. The South refused to run realistic Republican candidates that were very conservative via the Democratic power for like a century after the conclusion of the war as a result of being so enraged.

"when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government" - Declaration of Independence. Not right, duty. Forgive me, I misspoke. 

The point is, honoring these leaders is a concession to the South, of which a portion of their people still hold a cultural attachment to the Confederacy and their leaders. The reason why the US Army is hesitant to remove those names is because of its original goal: that of unifying a nation divided by America's bloodiest war. Besides, the US army gets most of its recruits in the South and California, typically from America's poorest and most likely to be least educated. Changing the name might insult some of those people. We're already divided politically. Removal of honoring traitors, or just making sure we do all of them doesn't change anything about it except no longer honoring American traitors.

 

4 hours ago, Edgar Allen Poe said:

Why?

People need to realize life is full of stuff that in one form or another is offensive. Erasing history and its monuments only makes the future uneducated, though right now we coddle our Colleges with letting them grade themselves now and provide safe spaces to avoid hearing others making use of free speech. How are statues or street names removing history, exactly? This is nothing to do with safe spaces or other shit; it's a question of celebrating American traitors for some reason. If anyone's trying for a safe space it's ironically those who support these statues.

The Civil War was not Good vs. Evil. It was about opposing views and the poor way both sides handled their differences. In the end, we lost on all sides. Monuments are made to honor these people from all sides of this conflict because both sides make up the whole of our nation regardless of what side you choose to side with historically. Sorry, just not accurate. 

Should I cause a ruckus and demand every US monument to every Injun hunter and killer be torn down because I find what they did offensive? Mt. Rushmore would then be nonexistent considering all of them promoted Native Genocide. Never going to happen.  Social Justice Warriors are not affected by this so they will never take up the cause. They only help their own kind which is mostly elitist white kids and their token non-white friends. If we're honoring traitors I just think we should do them all.

 

2 hours ago, Caecus said:

I wouldn't be so sure. Political correctness is killing our nation. Libtards insisted that political correctness is good for our country, I don't believe so. Political correctness is not required. You're entirely free of our governments to do so. Whether that has consequences for you outside of that protection is up to the private sector.

"the avoidance, often considered as taken to extremes, of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against."

 

[Caecus]

26 minutes ago, ComradeMilton said:

 

 

 

Oh look, when I quote you, it says nothing. Therefore, you must have said nothing. It gets annoying after a while. 

[ComradeMilton]

1 hour ago, Caecus said:

Oh look, when I quote you, it says nothing. Therefore, you must have said nothing. It gets annoying after a while. If you know that happens and don't like it why bother?

 

1 hour ago, Gabranth said:

Well, for example with the argument that is harms remembrance: who is looking at a statue and learning anything of value about the topic?

 

[Doktor Avalanche]

3 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

How are statues or street names removing history, exactly? This is nothing to do with safe spaces or other shit; it's a question of celebrating American traitors for some reason. If anyone's trying for a safe space it's ironically those who support these statues.

Methinks you are using the word "traitor" incorrectly.

3 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

Sorry, just not accurate. 

It was expected that you would fail at understanding basic History in its context and genre of the plight of the Civil War. The accuracy that both sides ended as one nation must be incomprehensible to you.

3 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

If we're honoring traitors I just think we should do them all.

Where is my justice in this cause I spoke of, regarding the Social Justice of tearing down all the murderers of the First Nations who called for Genocide? If you are so offended as to demand tearing down street names and statues because of racism, what about calling out Genocide and those who supported it in our Nation's HIstory?

[Caecus]

11 hours ago, Gabranth said:

I don't think any piece of history should be taken down if it were put up there in the first place. I'd say the reason a lot of these monuments were put up was due to the contribution to the history of the country, not whether it is positive or negative. Australia, for example, still keeps a Ned Kelly monument and a Eureka Stockade memorial simply because they were such defining moments in Australia's history, not because their contribution was deemed positive or negative. For those who are unaware, the Eureka Stockade was the Australian equivalent of the American Revolution - so it would be baffling as to why the English would allow for such a memorial. Ned Kelly was the Australian equivalent of Billy the Kid. He was an outlaw through and through, but his contribution to the Australian identity prevents his monument from being taken down - and that's exactly what I see in Confederate monuments. Although it was a dark time in America's history, it needs to be remembered. One could argue that statues and memorials glorify a person, and that is a valid criticism, but it is just as easy to say that they are there so that we may remember their legacy and their mistakes. Say what you will, but these men were integral in defining the identity of the South, and taking that away is just another way of curtailing American history. Regardless, I doubt that having a statue of a losing General will inspire people to act as the Confederates did.

To be entirely fair, Ned Kelly wasn't responsible for fighting a war that killed half a million Australians (and that's on the really low end of the estimations). 

What about rebranding street names? Or renaming forts? Statues and monuments, especially the ones which commemorate those who died during the conflict, you can have some sense of. I think it's harder to name street names and major army bases after them. I doubt Fort Benning (where pretty much every enlisted person goes for basic) or Fort Pickett were aptly named to remember "their mistakes." 

In any matter, I agree that a statue can't inspire people to act as the Confederacy did. We should remember what sectionalism, racism, and one-basket economies do to a country. But this is the 21st century. 150 years have gone by since the conflict. The south has rebuilt its economy (ironically having more industry than the north today). The amendments and major civil rights laws have done away with restricting individual liberties along racial lines. We should remember and learn from mistakes, but we have no need for glorifying those who started a conflict that killed more Americans than every other war combined. 

If the Confederacy is still part of some vague notion of southern identity, it should not be the mission of the federal government to placate to southern needs by naming streets and forts after them. The Confederacy at best represented a bloody separation from the United States that destroyed an entire generation, at worst an embodiment of a machine of profit fueled by a feudal system of racialized enslavement while hypocritically touting the ideals of the Age of Reason. 

[ComradeMilton]

13 hours ago, Gabranth said:

Although it was a dark time in America's history, it needs to be remembered. One could argue that statues and memorials glorify a person, and that is a valid criticism, but it is just as easy to say that they are there so that we may remember their legacy and their mistakes. Say what you will, but these men were integral in defining the identity of the South, and taking that away is just another way of curtailing American history. Regardless, I doubt that having a statue of a losing General will inspire people to act as the Confederates did. It's nothing to do with inspiring new traitors, it's really just offensive. For learning purposes here we stick history into textbooks to be taught.

 

11 hours ago, Gabranth said:

 

It's not about learning, it's about remembrance and reconciliation with the past. There is no reconciliation.

 

10 hours ago, Edgar Allen Poe said:

Methinks you are using the word "traitor" incorrectly. I stretched it a bit, but we don't seem to even care about glorifying working for the enemy. Where should we put Chelsea Manning's/Edward Snowden's/John Walker Lindh's statues?

It was expected that you would fail at understanding basic History in its context and genre of the plight of the Civil War. The accuracy that both sides ended as one nation must be incomprehensible to you. Your argument was just so pointless it didn't seem to require a response.

Where is my justice in this cause I spoke of, regarding the Social Justice of tearing down all the murderers of the First Nations who called for Genocide? If you are so offended as to demand tearing down street names and statues because of racism, what about calling out Genocide and those who supported it in our Nation's HIstory? I've never mentioned genocide. I've never mentioned Native Americans or First Nations either.

 

1 hour ago, Caecus said:

To be entirely fair, Ned Kelly wasn't responsible for fighting a war that killed half a million Australians (and that's on the really low end of the estimations). 

What about rebranding street names? Or renaming forts? Statues and monuments, especially the ones which commemorate those who died during the conflict, you can have some sense of. I think it's harder to name street names and major army bases after them. I doubt Fort Benning (where pretty much every enlisted person goes for basic) or Fort Pickett were aptly named to remember "their mistakes." We've been renaming military bases since the 1970s. Worked fine. I doubt it'll be difficult.

The amendments and major civil rights laws have done away with restricting individual liberties along racial lines. We should remember and learn from mistakes, but we have no need for glorifying those who started a conflict that killed more Americans than every other war combined. 

The Confederacy at best represented a bloody separation from the United States that destroyed an entire generation, at worst an embodiment of a machine of profit fueled by a feudal system of racialized enslavement while hypocritically touting the ideals of the Age of Reason.  Yeah, they're already working on removing those very things.

 

[Doktor Avalanche]

You are pointless and a waste of air. I am done.

[ComradeMilton]

1 hour ago, Edgar Allen Poe said:

You are pointless and a waste of air. I am done.

Sorry. Maybe next time have a good argument?

[Sir Scarfalot]

I am a solid leftist liberal, and I really don't see any reason to tear down/rename the things. History really shouldn't be whitewashed. There's something to be said for not honoring disreputable things, but that's why we don't have a national holiday celebrating either the beginning or the end of the Civil War. Passive acknowledgement, like having statues, is perfectly fine IMO; actively celebrating is different.

[WISD0MTREE]

On 8/9/2017 at 9:16 AM, Caecus said:

To be entirely fair, if you asked when ANY war that America was involved in took place (and yes, I am including the war of 1812), half of the participants wouldn't know when it started. That's more of an indication of the poor education system in the US, not any particular collective forgetfulness regarding the Civil War. 

I'd say the same about monuments to any side in any war in the US's extended history. So many people think the French-Indian War was between the French and Indians. I'm not trying to claim that people have forgotten more about the Civil War, but people have forgotten history and its importance. Why remove an object to try to hide a part of history from public sight? 

[Caecus]

1 hour ago, Gabranth said:

No the most Australians killed in any one conflict was World War 1 and we have memorials for that too, but that's besides the point. Point was we have memorials for things that wouldn't be considered memorial-worthy. Why pay respects to traitors and criminals? Because they were still Australians. Australians with an idea and a point that they tried to convey, yet unsuccessfully. The Confederates are no different, they tried to make a point and were overridden. 

Regardless, renaming forts and streets serves no purpose either except to erase a legacy. Sure, you could say that's a good thing but it is someone's legacy, and renaming it won't change anything but a street name or a fort name either. Fort Mattis and Pence St. have nice rings to them, I must admit, but even still it is important to understand the magnitude of the plans of the CSA, going so far as to name everything after themselves. I suppose if there were a time to rename anything it would be the reconstruction period, you know the kind of "denazification" they had in Germany, similar concept, but they didn't. Denazification is another aspect entirely, but the removal of Confederate monuments and mentions serves no purpose other than to erase the individual achievements of those Confederate leaders. Take that as you will. 

On the contrary, I think we should be celebrating the people who question the overreaching of the state. If you want to go by the "who started the war?" argument I'll just say that it isn't called "the War of Northern Aggression" for the meme. Regardless, the secession was perhaps the most blatant resurfacing of revolutionary American values, and anyone who dares question the Union and other powers that be should be commemorated. 250 years have gone by since the revolutionary war, there are still street names for Englishmen and memorials for English generals. Take them down too?

There is no appeasement, only there would be outcry if there was a change without valid reason, and from where I stand, there is no valid reason. It's likely that fort Benning they named it after him simply because he was a general that had a great name, and likely no other name from Georgia holds the same weight. You could argue there are other reasons but I would say you're deluded. If they want to name a fort after a newer general, make a new fort. You can't take away someone's legacy like that simply because of your resentment for the Confederates.

 

If the idea that you put up statues is because they are somehow tied to a certain nationality, why don't I have a statue? Sure, you could argue that I'm more or less a nobody working a 9 - 5 job that likes to troll people on the internet, but I have an idea and a point that I would like to convey. We build statues because we see some positive aspect in them that, in a collective social memory, we have decided to retain. Since you mentioned "denazification," I'll just let the millions of Goebbels statues (because Hitler is Austrian, duh.) show how much Germans love making statues of Germans. 

This argument makes sense, except that it discounts a couple of things:

First, your argument assumes that these forts and streets were already named during the reconstruction period. That is incorrect. Again, most of these monuments, streets, and forts were christened after the Spanish-American war in an effort to unify the nation by placating southerners and allowing them to glorify their homegrown terrorists. 

Second, removing these monuments and rebranding these fort and street names do serve a purpose. Besides the fact that some descendants of slaves might find it rather distasteful to serve in a fort bearing the name of a person who decided to kill people in order to preserve the institution of racialized enslavement, these forts are implicit reminders that the US government still recognizes a sectionalism that should have died at the end of 1945 and is actively still placating a (in my opinion) dead vision of a divided country and a return to an economy built on the backs of forced laborers.  

Thirdly, and this is super important, these names also serve to sanitize the southern secessionist cause. Seeing as how people can barely remember what year the war of 1812 started, people who are uninformed may (in their continued ignorance) look at these names and think to themselves that they must have been great people who have done significant things for our country. Little do they know, these people represent a fragmented identity of a section of a country built on the backs of forced servitude that actively fought in the nation's bloodiest war in order to retain the profits of owning another human being and is now being represented because there was a need for political correctness and national unity at the beginning of the 20th century;  A political correctness that entirely ignored the trampled civil rights and murdering terrorists that tried to sanitize, justify, and restore a stratified hierarchy centered on the difference of skin color.

If you want to keep up the monuments and names, perhaps some context should be given in order to better inform the public that might view these pieces out of said context. Like, putting a whip in the hand of Robert E Lee as he beats a black man, his sister, and their cousin for having fled north, or having Fort Benning's entrance be adorned with the graves of those who fought under and against him. With American education as poor as it is now, is it really such a stretch to think that people might actually think these people did great things for our country when it is really the opposite? 

 

Finally, "questioning the overreach of the state" is fine and dandy, but most people generally don't mobilize an entire economy and kill half a million people (again, on the low end of the estimates) to do their "questioning." If violence was the proper medium of discourse in a democracy, you would imagine the Wiemar Republic might still exist today. 

 

26 minutes ago, WISD0MTREE said:

I'd say the same about monuments to any side in any war in the US's extended history. So many people think the French-Indian War was between the French and Indians. I'm not trying to claim that people have forgotten more about the Civil War, but people have forgotten history and its importance. Why remove an object to try to hide a part of history from public sight? 

I refer to my statement above. And lol, French-Indian. I agree, people in this country need better primary education. 

Edited August 11, 2017 by Caecus