Is it wrong to remove Confederate statues?

@AceWarbringer Why should we celebrate a legacy of racism and hatred ? Placing these relics in museums preserves the history. [b]Teaching[/b] the truth of it in every school (including the fact that many of these were erected during the Civil Rights era, because segregationists [b]wanted[/b] to repeat it) will insure that this ugly time is not forgotten.

It's not celebration of racism and hatred. Often enough these statues are to great military commanders or unique accomplishment.

They are history, by presenting a site of which we can reflect upon its lore.

To tear that down, is tantamount to saying it never happened. Sweep the issue under the rug.

That's a lie I will never commit to myself.

Yes this terrible time happened. And to use a monument as an excuse to continue what is basically a political agenda which infringes upon the rights of others, is the fullest extent of political correctness i have ever seen.

I'm sticking to my guns on this one. To support any destruction of a monument to the past is historical suicide. And we will be doing this all over again a hundred years down the road.

@AceWarbringer Germany does not keep swastikas on their government buildings and then tell Jewish people that it's "so the history won't be forgotten". Of course, they have the decency to not still be proud of what happened.

@bijouxbroussard
Different war with different reasons with a different response.

Yes, Germany made it illegal to display swastikas.

So why don't they tear down the concentration camps that they have preserved throughout the countryside? Quite a few of them from what I remember.

The reason is that a swastika is a corrupted symbol of a terrible regime. That the German people want to desperately never have come about again. At the same time they keep the old and worn buildings of the camps around?

So why don't they?

It's a memory. However terrible it is it must be used. Not forgotten. It must remind the present and future generations so they never again commit the same mistakes.

We are in the middle of trying to tear down our memories. Simply because a select few don't like what they are associated with.

@AceWarbringer No, that's patently untrue; most of these relics [b]were put up[/b] during a time when a select few wanted to keep a group of people segregated and oppressed, by skin color and race, kept out of schools, jobs, housing, churches, mainstream life and society in general. [b]Legally[/b]. These were the people who fought [b]against[/b] the changes Martin Luther King Jr. was trying to affect, his "dream", almost 100 years after the Civil War and slavery had ended. It was a [b]celebration[/b] of Jim Crow, lynchings and racism. When Dr King was assassinated, those Confederate battle flags were flown [b]high[/b] by the people who wanted to keep these symbols displayed, in celebration.
Placing these things in a museum is not tearing them down. The people who are telling black people to stop talking about slavery and racism should [b]want[/b] to place these artifacts in museums where they belong.
And no one who claims to respect Martin Luther King, Jr could ever want to see the Confederate flag on a government building.

@bijouxbroussard This point has kinda been made before. Yes there are no swastikas remaining but there are statues and memorials to German Generals who fought in WW2.

@Ridger The point cannot be overemphasized that the Confederate flag [b]is[/b] the equivalent of the swastika here.

@AceWarbringer There is a difference between historical memorials of actual significance and statues put up in the 1920s long after the fact.

@bijouxbroussard I wasn't discussing the Confederate flag at all, I was talking about statues.

@Ridger Then it wasn't the point I was discussing with AceWarbinger that you claim was "already made". It was part of a different conversation.

@bijouxbroussard Looking over you conversation I would say I was right in saying what did and my point is valid. You used Germany as an example of where you don't see the past blatantly so I responded that you do with statutes of Nazi generals.

I addressed your second point which was before you mention Confederate battle flags. I was not engaging at all with what you said after on flags which is a linked point when you moved on.

You are right that the Confederate flag issue is a separate discussion as it bears no relation to German statues whatsoever if taken in isolation which I did.

And so I stand by what I say, I wasn't discussing the Confederate flag at all, I was talking about statues as you did about Germany in your second post.

@Ridger When I mentioned Germany, I specifically mentioned the swastika because I was aware that the German generals were loyal to Germany--- they were not fighting against their own country, as the Confederates in fact were. Regarding the U.S., I also made the point that moving the other relics into museums is not destroying them. Why is that point being ignored ?

@bijouxbroussard Arguably, German generals were fighting against their own country and their own people as it wasn't just the SS that was used to suppress undesirables like Communinsts and Socialists, not to mention purges of leadership and institutions. Especially when there were resistance groups being put down in wartime.

I am not ingoring your points on the US, I am just choosing not to address them as my knowledge on those areas is lesser which is why I asked this question in the first place to learn more.

All I was doing was pointing out a mistake on your behalf regarding Germany. Again I say I am making no effort in trying to talk about the Confederacy.

@Ridger Those German generals still believed they were fighting on behalf of Germany. The Confederates here seceded from the U.S. and in fact took up arms against it, which is the working definition of treason.

@bijouxbroussard The Nazis were in defiance to the country's constitution and violently pushed all those loyal to a democratic Germany aside. For Nazi Germany to come into existence, Weimar Germany had to be destroyed and it was with the overwhelming support of the military that this happened. This was treason as it was a successful attempt to overthrow the government they were loyal to by allying with a fringe group whether German or not. Treason isn't always an unsuccessful attempt.

@Ridger The German generals still believed they were fighting for Germany. The Confederates had seceded from the U.S. and were therefore fighting against it. And according to our Constitution, taking up arms against the U.S. is considered treason.

@bijouxbroussard I definition of treason is betraying the government by trying to overthrow or kill the ruling power. The German generals did both in there support of the Nazi party. Therefore they committed treason too. They fought again Germany before they fought for Nazi Germany in WW2. So they were treasonous, what's the difference between taking up arms against your country with large standing armies or with the use of soldiers to commit acts of violence, suppression and murder.

I would actually say that the Nazis and generals were more treasonous, they took over the entire country while the Cofenderates just wanted out of their's.

@Ridger According to our Constitution, taking up arms against the U.S. is an act of treason. The German generals were still fighting on behalf of Germany.

@AceWarbringer 🙌

@bijouxbroussard Bottom line is [b]this[/b]: the artifacts represent racism, like it or not. If you don't support or celebrate this country's racist past (and present) especially if you're one of those who want [b]us[/b] to stop talking about it, you shouldn't have a problem about consigning them to museums where they belong, and teaching accurate, non-whitewashed history in all U.S. schools so that the history is not forgotten.

@bijouxbroussard I am not saying the Confederates did not commit treason, I am saying that the German generals were a greater example of treason.

Again, please read my post. The German generals helped overthrow their government and kill the rulers to set up the Nazi party. This is against their own people and their own state, they were striving and fighting against democratic Germany and the German people in support of the Nazis. They went against the German constitution to help set up the Nazi party and these were the same generals who fought in WW2.

This is treason and a prime example of it as they did not just try to leave the country, the took it over. by the time WW2 came, Germany did not really exist, only a Facist German State and this is what the Generals fought for. They had already destroyed their old country.

[image deleted]

@Ridger Is that from our Constitution ? Because otherwise it is not really relevant.

@bijouxbroussard No nor am I saying it is. I am not disputing that the Confederates committed treason or anything they did and I am saying this for the third time now. That is the European definition of treason you will find in most European laws, Germany included since Britain and France had a hand in on Writing the Weimar German constitution.

Even according to the German Weimar constitution, what the Generals did was treason and it comprised the integrity of the democratic government while at the same time using violence to impose a dictatorship which was prohibited in the constitution as put forward in the restrictions of Versailles.

@Ridger That will be something worth considering if someone wants to establish statues of German generals in the American South. Otherwise, while interesting, it's largely irrelevant.