Confederate statue stirs controversy in Virginia (1 Viewer)

[Rob]

I'm guessing that some modern Southerners would be concerned whether they would get justice in a court "guarded" by the threatening/guarding statue of a soldier representing the majority race and religion and the aim to keep the majority on top.

There was contraversy about the Lincoln statue in Richmond, but as Lincoln actually did make a victory tour of Richmond, That statue is appropriate unlike the Confederate statues sent to the United States Capitol building by former Confederate states since those heroes tried to leave the United States. Just sayin'.

Or maybe its just a memorial statue and folk are reading too much into it. Just sayin:wink2:

Rob

 

[Scott]

Or maybe its just a memorial statue and folk are reading too much into it. Just sayin:wink2:

Rob

As a fellow old white guy I might agree but it's a case of our heroes vs. their heroes. Probably not a lot of WW II second place trophies around in Europe.:salute::

 

[lancer]

As a fellow old white guy I might agree but it's a case of our heroes vs. their heroes. Probably not a lot of WW II second place trophies around in Europe.:salute::

I'm a little confused. What, exactly, is 'our' heroes, as opposed to 'their heroes' in relation to the Confederate statue in Leesburg? -- Al

 

[Jack]

There is a burgeoning field of Civil War studies called Civil War memory and this issue fits right into that. The leading work in the field is David Blight's Race and Reunion is the seminal text. If you're interested in the Civil War, you need to read this book. How we remember a certain event can be as important as the event itself.

I don't want to set reading homework but if this area of history is of interest read Samuel Hynes 'A War Imagined: First World War and English Culture'. It investigates, amongst other things, Brad's statement about how an historical event is remembered or 'imagined' and how this understanding can become more influential than the event itself. Rob alienated 22 million Australians by questioning the quality of the movie Gallipoli, but it is an iconic example of how the conflict is imagined by Australians. The movie, like Australia history and Australians generally, remained remarkably faithful to the first response to the landing at Gallipoli as we perceived it in 1915 - birth of a nation, true Aussie spirit emerges in imperial stuff up, uncaring and incompetent Brit officers, the noble Turk, the citizen soldier, a people shaped by the Bush. The movie was not an update of a myth. It was a faithful retelling of it. In contrast, the Brits who altered their imagining of war in the face of the casualties on the Somme, adopted a different rhetoric or 'a soldier's rhetoric' (one repeated by Rowan Atkinson to such comic effect in the Blackadder series) and thereby interrogated their understanding of war as articulated by people like Rupert Brooke. If you doubt this, try discussing with an Australian whether the performance of Australian soldiers in WW1 has been overstated. Be ready to fight. Other myths abound - the German stab in the back myth with which they explained defeat in WW1 is an obvious example. If indeed the statue issue is about a lack of knowledge, it is, at a basic level, understandable that someone who 'imagines' the war as purely a conflict over slavery would naturally see those who opposed the North as fighting for slavery. Someone with ancestors who were slaves would 'imagine' the war differently than someone who fought for the Confederate cause. I have no doubt that there are thousands of different understandings of the conflict. Move the statue and you are accepting one of those versions as 'correct'. If the full story, whatever that is, needs to be told, the discussion should be about adding to the commemoration to give a fuller picture.

 

[tdubel]

Folks are sometimes surprised when told by other folks that Hey, we are actually annoyed by insults oppression and descrimination. Now that some minorities have more political and economic clout than years ago, dismissing there protests under "too much political correctness" is a mistake.


Why call something PC? What freedom of expression is being suppressed? Ethnic and sexist slurs? Old symbols of tyranny? Do we really want to die on that hill?

Scott,

I figured you would join this conversation sooner than later and I figured the old slavery argument would come up too. Why not beat that drum, only a racist would argue against it.............................

This story is about an idiot lawyer who wants to get his name in the paper and is using PC run amok.

Good lord what is the world coming to.

 

[tdubel]

Based on the story and the additional research I did, it's really hard to know what the issue is. However, considered with all the other issues raised by the Southern heritage people, this one seems , at this point, minor. An issue that has garnered more controversy is the renaming of Bedford Forrest Park in Memphis.

This has really nothing to do with PC, which seems always the easy answer but really doesn't get at the reasons. The South is a changing part of the country that is an attractive place to live and is drawing different ethnic groups, as well as African Americans, who are, in a sense, returning home and now finding it a more hospitable place to live. Some of these vestiges of the post Civil War era bother some because of what they represent. However, the groups on the other side, find changing these symbols equally disturbing and governments are trying to accommodate both.

Comparing this with other countries really doesn't make a lot of sense unless you compare it to civil wars those countries have suffered because they have their own issues.

There is a burgeoning field of Civil War studies called Civil War memory and this issue fits right into that. The leading work in the field is David Blight's Race and Reunion is the seminal text. If you're interested in the Civil War, you need to read this book. How we remember a certain event can be as important as the event itself.

Brad,
You and I will probably never see completely eye to eye on this and that is quite ok! We always can have a scholarly discussion. I kind of view it this way, I fly my flag, you fly yours and we exist together.

I only really get upset when someone tells me its not ok to fly my flag (which is basically where this story is going). Having further researched this too, this is about the most innocent statue out there in front of an historic courthouse in the middle of major conflicts of the Civil War. This story just doesn't fly about intimidation, oppression, etc. I never agreed with the flag issues either. Everybody is entitled to their beliefs, I just don't want mine constantly trampled on. We fly all flags at my house and that is how we treat it, if somebody wants to be offended by the Stars and Bars, that is their problem, not mine. I refuse to bury and cower in shame at the fact that one of my ancestors died at Yellow Tavern with Jeb Stuart, they were all VA Calvary. Ironically, one of my Union ancestors of the First MD was dishonorably discharged at war's end for drunk and disorderly conduct!

Anyhow, this particular story borders on laughable and I have given it way too much attention already!

TD

 

[The Military Workshop]

"Rob alienated 22 million Australians by questioning the quality of the movie Gallipoli"

Not to mention the huge legions of Mel Gibson fans !!!! (OK I might be exaggerating here).

Lets add Kelly's Heroes, Braveheart and The Patriot fans and you know Rob is in serious trouble.

 

[Rob]

"Rob alienated 22 million Australians by questioning the quality of the movie Gallipoli"

Not to mention the huge legions of Mel Gibson fans !!!! (OK I might be exaggerating here).

Lets add Kelly's Heroes, Braveheart and The Patriot fans and you know Rob is in serious trouble.

^&grin

A trio of beauties there Brett and not one of them a War film!:wink2:

I shouldn't laugh at them really, but when you think someone took the Oradour sur- Glane atrocity and put it into the Patriot you have to chuckle.{sm4} If you look closely behind the painted Warriors in Braveheart you can just make out a Sherman Firefly :wink2:

Rob

 

[Scott]

I'm a little confused. What, exactly, is 'our' heroes, as opposed to 'their heroes' in relation to the Confederate statue in Leesburg? -- Al

The non-white and possibly non-Christian populations in this state.

 

[Scott]

Scott,

I figured you would join this conversation sooner than later and I figured the old slavery argument would come up too. Why not beat that drum, only a racist would argue against it.............................

This story is about an idiot lawyer who wants to get his name in the paper and is using PC run amok.

Good lord what is the world coming to.

Possibly it's senses.

I do not suspect from your posts here that you are a lout or a bigot. Don't assume or accuse me (ad hominen) of being the problem when I disagree with an issue, and state my reasons for disagreement.

 

[Scott]

You know...that's actually a pretty good statue.

 

[Warrior]

You know...that's actually a pretty good statue.

View attachment 126795

Agreed, it is a nice one.

Although now that this picture is up, I'm waiting for the "That's the wrong musket/his socks are linen and they should be wool/those bootstrings are not authentic" crowd to chime in.

The part about this that saddens me is here we are 148 years from the ending of the war and there is still a large segment of this country still fighting the war.

For anyone who does not live in this country, you cannot fathom the divide this war created in this country, one sadly that I never, ever see healing.

The wounds will always, always be there.

I live in Massachusetts, in the north, but me, I'm an AMERICAN, not a northerner, not a southerner, an AMERICAN.

650,000 men died and nothing was really settled in the end.

How truly sad.

 

[lancer]

The non-white and possibly non-Christian populations in this state.

I understand. However, the war memorial has nothing to do with religion or race. It is a tribute to the dead of war. If that offends people, tough. No reason to change it's location because some choose to be 'offended' or 'intimidated' (what a bunch of rot). -- Al

 

[Fusilier]

I understand. However, the war memorial has nothing to do with religion or race. It is a tribute to the dead of war. If that offends people, tough. No reason to change it's location because some choose to be 'offended' or 'intimidated' (what a bunch of rot). -- Al

Have to agree with Al and Tom on this one. If someone assumes that a memorial to Confederate war dead is an endorsement of the unsavory aspects of slavery or racism is only looking for demons where none exsist. A person can dislike the Confederacy all they want based on that entity's stance in regards to slavery. I bet most all of us would readily agree on that point. Yet, I think the very same person could still honor the fact that so many fellow Americans died fighting for something they believe in. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive. One can hate the Confederacy and still honor the memory of those who died in the conflict. Just because some people want to honor the memory of the dead does not inherently mean they approve of the same ideals which caused those deceased soldiers to fight.

If we continued with such flawed logic, we, as a society, should remove many other statues. The same rationale which this lawyer applies to the war memorial can be extended to many other things. For example, the numerous statues of George Washington must be taken down, since Washington was a slave owner. The attorney's logic dictates that we cannot honor the memory of Washington, since he held ideas which we now consider wrong. I have a feeling the same attorney would not want to remove statues of our first president, which consequently nullifies his own argument......

Noah

 

[Scott]

......................

If we continued with such flawed logic, we, as a society, should remove many other statues. The same rationale which this lawyer applies to the war memorial can be extended to many other things. For example, the numerous statues of George Washington must be taken down, since Washington was a slave owner. The attorney's logic dictates that we cannot honor the memory of Washington, since he held ideas which we now consider wrong. I have a feeling the same attorney would not want to remove statues of our first president, which consequently nullifies his own argument......

Noah

It's a case by case issue rather than a general issue. Washington was "our" hero who helped create the United States and we remember more about that in his life rather than he was a man of his time and place that owned slaves. You can have a statue of George Washington anywhere in the US of A. Boston and Newburyport, Ma. both have Washington statues. (He was in both locations) A Confederate statue (and the one in question might make a nice 54mm) is location specific and if the locals don't see any significance anymore in it, they can have it removed.

 

[jazzeum]

I don't agree at all with the stances taken by Tom and Al but this situation is not one that seems one to get all that hot and bothered about. However, I'm sure they would take the same position on a better example like the renaming of Forrest Park in Memphis as I would which is diametrically opposed to theirs. This doesn't mean they're not my friends because they are. I look forward to seeing Tom a few times a year and Al seems like a kindred spirit. Of course, Tom's Union ancestors have probably disowned him by now {eek3}

No one is going to change their position or convince the other of theirs so these threads tend to be predictably boring that way.

What I don't understand though is that when anyone post something serious about the Civil War or that era like a new book, it barely gets a mention. UK Reb has I believe mentioned this and I fully agree with him. About the only person who seems to take notice is Al.

It's a little frustrating that controversy gets all the attention but serious reflection about our past does not.

 

[Fusilier]

It's a case by case issue rather than a general issue. Washington was "our" hero who helped create the United States and we remember more about that in his life rather than he was a man of his time and place that owned slaves. You can have a statue of George Washington anywhere in the US of A. Boston and Newburyport, Ma. both have Washington statues. (He was in both locations) A Confederate statue (and the one in question might make a nice 54mm) is location specific and if the locals don't see any significance anymore in it, they can have it removed.

I hear what you are saying, but by that rationale, once a statue, landmark, or whatever loses its local significance, then it should be removed. That argument means that if people in Boston for whatever reason decided they did want to see Washington's visage anymore, then it should be taken down. I would disagree with that idea. Essentially, once something has historical significance, it should be preserved, if for no other reason than it tells about our national history. This goes for numerous statues of Washington or the Confederate memorial in question. I would argue the relevence of such monuments to American history supercedes the "modern" sentiments of the attorney in Virginia.

You allude to the fact that Washington is a national hero with signifigance for everyone. I could not agree more. In a similar way, the Confederate memorial is significant for everyone since it recalls the long, bloody struggle of the Civil War. Whether we agree with all the motivations of the participants, the fact remains that the Civil War has national signifigance for everyone. On that basis, I believe the war memorial should stay.

Noah

 

[waynepoo]

Apologies for spelling in this , have not got my reading glasses with me today! (reading glasses....here comes middle age:redface2::rolleyes2:
Rob

Man I'm already there...^&grin

 

[jazzeum]

There is a somewhat interesting parallel with statues showing Lincoln freeing the slaves. These have come in for some criticism because it shows him or you can read that white men giving to blacks what was rightfully theirs. In addition, there was a lot of blacks taking the bulls by the horns and freeing themselves, or self emancipation.

Of course, no one is advocating taking them down buy it just shows how views of what was once acceptable changes.

 

[tdubel]

I don't agree at all with the stances taken by Tom and Al but this situation is not one that seems one to get all that hot and bothered about. However, I'm sure they would take the same position on a better example like the renaming of Forrest Park in Memphis as I would which is diametrically opposed to theirs. This doesn't mean they're not my friends because they are. I look forward to seeing Tom a few times a year and Al seems like a kindred spirit. Of course, Tom's Union ancestors have probably disowned him by now {eek3}

No one is going to change their position or convince the other of theirs so these threads tend to be predictably boring that way.

What I don't understand though is that when anyone post something serious about the Civil War or that era like a new book, it barely gets a mention. UK Reb has I believe mentioned this and I fully agree with him. About the only person who seems to take notice is Al.

It's a little frustrating that controversy gets all the attention but serious reflection about our past does not.

Brad,
quite right. My apologies for not being more "vocal" on the more serious posts as I do read and "eat" them up. You are right though, I am guilty of not posting on those, but rest assured they are quite good and I do check out the subjects vigorously.

My Union ancestors are still much cherished, they don't get as much attention b/c they are not routinely attacked!!!! In all seriousness, their story was a little more boring then their Southern brethren. The unit that my direct Tri-great Grandad (one who was thrown in the clink for drunkeness) didn't see much action. I swear I think they practiced marching for a few years (according to the full records I have). Maryland was quite an interesting State in its own right, deeply divided. One thing I can always be proud of is that NONE of my ancestors owned Slaves, that is a fact written in the record. They on all sides were simple farmers, with their own lands, German and Dutch immigrants all the way around. They carved out their "little slice" in MD and VA and just happened to ironically fall on both sides of the conflict.

Am I a lost causer, sure, to some respects b/c I am a strong believer in State's rights. That part of the Conflict resonates with me and it has nothing to do with Slavery. As I have always said, Slavery was one of the catalysts, but in my opinion, there is a much deeper divide than that and some of which exists in modern day. End of the day, as George said, we are all Americans.

My main argument is the constant revisionist and political correctness that exist. I swear and stick by the fact that there are some IDIOT citizens who could be offended by an ant crawling on the ground, the wind blowing the wrong way, etc etc and there are only too many who love to exacerbate (Vocab word of the day for those following along at home) and exploit that situation and argue it. That is the sad part for me.

TD