Should the Stone Mountain Confederate Memorial carving be removed?

Debate and discussion on racism and related issues

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
koko
Sage
Posts: 626
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:24 pm
Location: Twin Cities
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: Should the Stone Mountain Confederate Memorial carving be removed?

Post #51

Post by koko »

Mithrae wrote: Fri Jul 24, 2020 7:37 pm I just saw an amusing thread on another forum suggesting that while Americans are in the process of purifying everything with racist associations, maybe they should look at the
Party of George Wallace.
Party that opposed school integration.
Party that almost stopped the civil rights and voting act.
Party of jim crow.
Party of the KKK.
Party of slavery.
Party of Jefferson Davis himself.

We've already been well-informed that it's not consequence or current events which matter, just the historical associations. And surely the dark historical actions and associations of that party cannot be white-washed by subsequent associations, any more than Stone Mountain can be rehabilitated as an object lesson in cultural insularism and backwardness. That political party must simply be removed, that's all there is to it :lol:

Yes, it can be amusing how things evolve. Today, consider

Party of Trump.
Party which promotes hate.
Party whose candidates are endorsed by KKK, Proud Boys, Three Percenters.
Party which applauds Saudi Arabia where slavery still exists (though denied by the government).
Party which opposed extension of Civil Rights Act.
Party of 'trickle down' theory (actually, trickle up FACT).


No small surprise why members of that party applaud the monument and the actions of criminal police. Yup, amazing how some things turn out.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 8839
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: Should the Stone Mountain Confederate Memorial carving be removed?

Post #52

Post by Bust Nak »

Mithrae wrote: Fri Jul 24, 2020 12:57 pm Surely it matters if presumption of innocence means anything. Trial by jury is required to send someone to prison even for a few years: Koko seems to believe that their very names should be cursed and any who honour them unto the hundredth generation... not only without a trial, but in the knowledge that they likely would have been exonerated had they been tried.
I don't see what the problem is, name cursed and dishonored for a hundred generations is not a legal matter. This is about morality and the court of public opinion is the one that matters here.
The British Empire wasn't founded on a principle of consent of the governed - the USA was, at least for white male landowners. If the governed withdrew their consent yet were still forced to submit to the government, that's a contradiction of everything the US supposedly stood for. Not the first or last example of such contradictions, admitedly.
That makes the South freedom fighters, it's not mutually exclusive label to traitors.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 17567
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: Should the Stone Mountain Confederate Memorial carving be removed?

Post #53

Post by otseng »

Group pitches big changes to Stone Mountain Park’s Confederate imagery

A local activist group made its pitch Monday for a re-imagined Stone Mountain Park, asking officials to work with them on a wide-ranging plan to remove, relocate and contextualize the Confederate imagery that defines one of Georgia’s most popular and divisive attractions.

Some of those officials — board members of the Stone Mountain Memorial Association — have recently expressed a willingness to address the area’s history more completely. The association is purportedly already discussing additions to the park.

But board chairman Ray Stallings Smith III said sweeping changes like those brought forth by the grassroots group known as the Stone Mountain Action Coalition are a tough sell.

"We’re open to some changes,” Smith said. “But our changes are probably gonna be a little different than what they’re proposing. Because again, we are constrained by state law.”

The Stone Mountain Action Coalition coalesced in recent months, as the national discussion about systemic racism reignited and the mountain re-emerged as a cultural flashpoint, drawing white supremacists and counter-protesters to the area on multiple occasions.

The group’s proposals include removing the Confederate flags that have long flown at the base of the mountain; changing names of streets and other park features with Confederate affiliations; and launching a larger branding effort that would focus the park on themes like nature, racial reconciliation and justice.

The coalition also suggested halting maintenance on the mountain’s massive carving of Confederate leaders Jefferson Davis, Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee, which it views as a potential short-term solution while working to change state laws that protect the monument.

“We don’t believe that taking a piecemeal, token kind of approach to adding little trinkets here and there is going to be good enough to really resolve the history of the mountain and the way that people see it,” said Ryan Gravel, a coalition co-chair.

Several other coalition members also spoke during Monday’s presentation. They said that they weren’t making demands but asking to partner with the memorial association to create a more welcoming park.

Co-chair Meymoona Freeman produced an American flag that she suggested could replace one of the Confederate banners that fly at the mountain’s base.

“It’s time for transformation, it’s time for healing and it’s time for progress,” she said.

Smith, the memorial association chairman, has previously said that additions that would help balance the historical picture at the park are being discussed, but has provided few details. He said Monday that the memorial association board meeting originally planned for next week — a gathering where those potential additions were set to be discussed in public — is likely to be pushed back.

“We’re going to meet with the governor and see what he wants to do” before presenting a plan, Smith said.
https://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta-news/g ... gn_1524885

bjs1
Student
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 12:18 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 20 times

Re: Should the Stone Mountain Confederate Memorial carving be removed?

Post #54

Post by bjs1 »

koko wrote: Sun Jul 05, 2020 4:08 pm While I respect the views expressed, I cannot agree since Davis, Lee, and Jackson were all traitors who betrayed the USA in favor of secessionsists. Hundreds of thousands died because of them. Try that today - who would call you a patriot? a hero? an American? Nobody would.
I have never understood the “traitors” argument. America was founded by traitors. Any standard that would call Davis, Lee, and Jackson traitors would also have to call Washington, Franklin and Hamilton traitors.






To the larger issue: Perhaps I am a little bias by the fact that I have always liked Jackson. He is, in my opinion, the greatest military mind America has ever produced. While the Civil War was fought over slavery, Jackson himself viewed it more as an issue of self-representation. In his letters he referred to the American Civil war as “our second war for independence.” He expressed private concerns about slavery, but there is no record of him ever opposing it publicly. His clearest recorded thought on the matter was that if slavery were to end then it should be ended by the people and not by an outside military force, which was how he viewed the Union Army.

I understand the desire to tear down the monuments, but I don’t think that I can get on board with this one. At the very least I will close with this thought: If we are going to tear down the monuments to people who did bad things, then we will have to tear down all the monuments.

User avatar
koko
Sage
Posts: 626
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:24 pm
Location: Twin Cities
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: Should the Stone Mountain Confederate Memorial carving be removed?

Post #55

Post by koko »

quote: I have never understood the “traitors” argument. America was founded by traitors. Any standard that would call Davis, Lee, and Jackson traitors would also have to call Washington, Franklin and Hamilton traitors.



my reply:

Our Founders were not traitors. They were loyal Americans who were not beholden to foreign imperialists.




quote:

To the larger issue: Perhaps I am a little bias by the fact that I have always liked Jackson. He is, in my opinion, the greatest military mind America has ever produced. While the Civil War was fought over slavery, Jackson himself viewed it more as an issue of self-representation. In his letters he referred to the American Civil war as “our second war for independence.” He expressed private concerns about slavery, but there is no record of him ever opposing it publicly. His clearest recorded thought on the matter was that if slavery were to end then it should be ended by the people and not by an outside military force, which was how he viewed the Union Army.



Robert E Lee and a bunch of other southern traitors went to West Point or to other USA service academies. When they initially signed up they took an oath of allegiance which they ultimately betrayed. This makes them traitors. Because of that they earned the firing squad.





quote:

I understand the desire to tear down the monuments, but I don’t think that I can get on board with this one. At the very least I will close with this thought: If we are going to tear down the monuments to people who did bad things, then we will have to tear down all the monuments.


Explain your "logic" for that one.

bjs1
Student
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 12:18 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 20 times

Re: Should the Stone Mountain Confederate Memorial carving be removed?

Post #56

Post by bjs1 »

koko wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 11:18 pm quote: I have never understood the “traitors” argument. America was founded by traitors. Any standard that would call Davis, Lee, and Jackson traitors would also have to call Washington, Franklin and Hamilton traitors.

my reply:

Our Founders were not traitors. They were loyal Americans who were not beholden to foreign imperialists.
No, they were traitors (at least by any standard that would also call Davis, Lee and Jackson traitors). Washington, Franklin and Hamilton were all British citizens, as were the vast majority of colonists.

Washington was a Lieutenant Colonel in the British militia. When he later took up arms against the British militia he betrayed his oath of office.

Now personally I don’t view Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, Davis, Lee or Jackson as traitors. They did what they believed was right. We can disagree or agree with them, but calling them traitors after the fact seem unfair. Certainly calling one group traitors and not the other is special pleading of the worst kind.


koko wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 11:18 pm quote:

To the larger issue: Perhaps I am a little bias by the fact that I have always liked Jackson. He is, in my opinion, the greatest military mind America has ever produced. While the Civil War was fought over slavery, Jackson himself viewed it more as an issue of self-representation. In his letters he referred to the American Civil war as “our second war for independence.” He expressed private concerns about slavery, but there is no record of him ever opposing it publicly. His clearest recorded thought on the matter was that if slavery were to end then it should be ended by the people and not by an outside military force, which was how he viewed the Union Army.


Robert E Lee and a bunch of other southern traitors went to West Point or to other USA service academies. When they initially signed up they took an oath of allegiance which they ultimately betrayed. This makes them traitors. Because of that they earned the firing squad.
Lee died of a stroke. He did not face a firing squad. And yes they broke their oath of allegiance, but so did George Washington. Both Lee and Washington would have said that they were fighting for their country, where their real allegiance belonged.

koko wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 11:18 pm quote:

I understand the desire to tear down the monuments, but I don’t think that I can get on board with this one. At the very least I will close with this thought: If we are going to tear down the monuments to people who did bad things, then we will have to tear down all the monuments.


Explain your "logic" for that one.
Every American who has done something worthy of a monument has also done also done things that make them worthy of having that monument torn down. Washington owned slaves. Lincoln arrested and held without charge or trial thousands of people, including members of legislatures, on the suspicion of having southern sympathies. He was also a horrible racist by modern standards. Martin Luther King Jr. beat his wife.

People are flawed. We have all done bad things. That does not mean that we cannot celebrate the good qualities of people without ignoring their flaws.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 8839
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: Should the Stone Mountain Confederate Memorial carving be removed?

Post #57

Post by Bust Nak »

bjs1 wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 11:44 pm Washington was a Lieutenant Colonel in the British militia. When he later took up arms against the British militia he betrayed his oath of office.
They get a pass because they won.
That does not mean that we cannot celebrate the good qualities of people without ignoring their flaws.
Do you think Davis, Lee or Jackson are, on the whole, celebrated without ignoring their flaws? From where I am sitting, those who celebrate them are very keen on ignoring their flaws.

User avatar
koko
Sage
Posts: 626
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:24 pm
Location: Twin Cities
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: Should the Stone Mountain Confederate Memorial carving be removed?

Post #58

Post by koko »

bjs1 wrote


No, they were traitors (at least by any standard that would also call Davis, Lee and Jackson traitors). Washington, Franklin and Hamilton were all British citizens, as were the vast majority of colonists.

Washington was a Lieutenant Colonel in the British militia. When he later took up arms against the British militia he betrayed his oath of office.

Now personally I don’t view Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, Davis, Lee or Jackson as traitors. They did what they believed was right. We can disagree or agree with them, but calling them traitors after the fact seem unfair. Certainly calling one group traitors and not the other is special pleading of the worst kind.

... Lee died of a stroke. He did not face a firing squad. And yes they broke their oath of allegiance, but so did George Washington. Both Lee and Washington would have said that they were fighting for their country, where their real allegiance belonged.




My reply:


As shown in the Declaration of Independence, when a government refuses to live up to its commitments, then people are absolved from having any loyalty to it. This is why Washington was NOT a traitor. On the contrary it was the British government who betrayed him and all other Americans.

By contrast, the US government did not betray the South. The government lived up to the Constitution's ideals and laws. It was the South that betrayed them. This is why Lee and others were traitors.









quoting bjs1:

Every American who has done something worthy of a monument has also done also done things that make them worthy of having that monument torn down. Washington owned slaves. Lincoln arrested and held without charge or trial thousands of people, including members of legislatures, on the suspicion of having southern sympathies. He was also a horrible racist by modern standards. Martin Luther King Jr. beat his wife.

People are flawed. We have all done bad things. That does not mean that we cannot celebrate the good qualities of people without ignoring their flaws.





my reply:


While it is true that everyone has some flaw, this does not justify tearing down honors made in their memory.

Lincoln saved the Union and freed the slaves. Yes he did resort to tough measures but they were necessitated by war. War is hell. We all know that. But he didn't start the war, he ended it.


By contrast, Lee and other southern traitors started the war that killed so many. That is why their statues should be taken down.

bjs1
Student
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 12:18 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 20 times

Re: Should the Stone Mountain Confederate Memorial carving be removed?

Post #59

Post by bjs1 »

Bust Nak wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 9:38 am
bjs1 wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2020 11:44 pm Washington was a Lieutenant Colonel in the British militia. When he later took up arms against the British militia he betrayed his oath of office.
They get a pass because they won.
You have hit the nail on the head. Americans can ignore any flaw as long as the person is victorious. We can celebrate a traitor, a liar or a cheat but not a loser. Defeat is the unforgivable sin to us. So the sacrifice of soldiers in the world wars is celebrated, while the sacrifice of soldiers in Vietnam is dismissed at best.
Bust Nak wrote: Thu Sep 17, 2020 9:38 am
That does not mean that we cannot celebrate the good qualities of people without ignoring their flaws.
Do you think Davis, Lee or Jackson are, on the whole, celebrated without ignoring their flaws?
As much as anyone is. We often put people in “good” or “bad” categories, viewing life as black and white. We ignore the flaws of those we emulate and disregard the positive qualities of those we despise.

I have found that those who are willing to see people as complex and imperfect can celebrate the good of folks like Jackson (again, someone I like), while still recognizing their failings.

I grant that I have never lived in the south. Perhaps things are different there.

Post Reply