Objectivity

I've often "preached" on this forum about the hypocrisy and lack of objectivity in America. We all seem to have our opinions about things that might affect us directly, but we seem to suffer from a lack of objectivity and empathy when it comes to things that might affect others.

When it comes to the KKK, nazis, white-supremacists, etc., there is NO need for objectivity or empathy. These people are just haters, and there's absolutely nothing redeeming about them.

For those who have genuine feelings about removal of Confederate statues and monuments, I can definitely understand that, but I can also understand why there are those who believe they need to be removed. I think there's an opportunity for discussion and compromise here, but only if people are willing to come together, have a rational conversation, and find some degree of common ground. There's a solution out there, but it can't be "winner take all".

Another example is Black Lives Matter (BLM). This is a group that has taken a lot of flack, in my opinion, from people who have simply not taken the time to fully consider the position this group is coming from. Are there "bad actors" within BLM ... absolutely yes, and they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law if/when these individuals are caught committing a crime ... any crime.

I was recently reading a history of Northern Ireland, and I was amazed by the parallels that Irish Catholics were subjected to in Northern Ireland and many of the issues that BLM raises. I think that a lot of younger people today, have little or no knowledge of "The Troubles". It's not a subject that is covered in American schools, at least not the ones my kids attended.

Take a look for yourself if you're interested ... It might change the way you think about discrimination (especially if you're an Irish Catholic and aren't aware of the history of Northern Ireland).

http://www.theirishstory.com/2015/02/09/the-northern-ireland-conflict-1968-1998-an-overview/#.WZW_cHeGOM4

Awesome post.  You are obviously a very thoughtful person.

Agree with the strong stance on KKK, Nazis, etc.

Face4Me wrote

For those who have genuine feelings about removal of Confederate statues and monuments, I can definitely understand that, but I can also understand why there are those who believe they need to be removed. I think there's an opportunity for discussion and compromise here, but only if people are willing to come together, have a rational conversation, and find some degree of common ground. There's a solution out there, but it can't be "winner take all".

I don't know, man. If a majority of people want them gone, I say get em out of there. The solution shouldn't be: 60% support their removal, and 40% don't, so we'll leave 40% of them up.

Someone said that the founding fathers are celebrated despite their failings, but these Confederates are celebrated (by certain people) because of their failings. Those monuments were put up as a big middle finger to black people. I think we should get rid of them and put some abolitionist statues up. Then Coach can learn who Harriet Tubman is.

Unfortunately these "disagreements" exist in many parts of the world.  The Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda/Burundi, Israelis and Palestinians, blacks and whites in S. Africa and probably many more that I'm not familiar with.  I find it grotesque how the western world let 900,000 die in a genocide in Rwanda.....and that wasn't even 25 years ago.

MC2 5678F589 wrote

  Those monuments were put up as a big middle finger to black people.

Simply not true but you're welcome to think that

I saw a poll that 63% think they should stay.  Why couldn't they put it on the ballot and let the people in that particular state decide if they come down or not.  

campgottagopee wrote

MC2 5678F589 wrote

  Those monuments were put up as a big middle finger to black people.

Simply not true but you're welcome to think that

Actually it is true along with some revisionist history to rebrand the CSA as a noble cause.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/08/16/how-statues-of-robert-e-lee-and-other-confederates-got-into-the-u-s-capitol/?utm_term=.57e79b552bc9

From the article:
"On Thursday morning, Trump lamented the loss of “beautiful statues and monuments,” including those dedicated to Lee. “Robert E Lee, Stonewall Jackson – who’s next, Washington, Jefferson? So foolish!” he tweeted.

Lee himself wouldn’t agree with Trump. He lived only five more years after the end of the Civil War. But in that time, he made it clear how he felt about memorials to the failed insurrection.

“I think it wiser,” he wrote in an 1869 letter, “not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered.”

Southern states ignored this advice, building a few monuments each year for decades.

But then, in the early 20th century, arose the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, a revisionist-history narrative that depicts the South’s secession and defeat as heroic and even patriotic. As the Southern Poverty Law Center has catalogued, from 1900 and into the 1930s, Confederate monuments sprang up in the South at a record pace. Statues of Lee — the Confederate commander and a cruel slave owner who had been recast as a gentle, reluctant warrior — were particularly popular."

Those are some wise words from Lee - “not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered.”

Lee was a traitor to the USA. He was a slave owner. He wanted to continue to be a slave owner. If he did not become a traitor, the Civil War would have been much shorter with many less casualties on both sides. The American blood is on his hands.

My understanding of the history around these monuments, not what they have morphed into, is that the original intent of these were to teach people values.

http://www.history.com/news/how-the-u-s-got-so-many-confederate-monuments

“All of those monuments were there to teach values to people,” Elliott says. “That’s why they put them in the city squares. That’s why they put them in front of state buildings.” Many earlier memories had instead been placed in cemeteries.


I'm not saying the shouldn't come down in celebration of freedom. I believe if a town votes to do that then that should happen. I'm saying the original intent of these monuments was not meant to be bad.

campgottagopee wrote

My understanding of the history around these monuments, not what they have morphed into, is that the original intent of these were to teach people values.

What are the values? Should we should celebrate a brutal traitor who disavowed his officer's duties and commission to the the USA to brutally attack the USA? The whole reason for the Civil War was slavery, which meant free labor, which meant greed. Are we to applaud this? Was slavery OK?

 

campgottagopee wrote

My understanding of the history around these monuments, not what they have morphed into, is that the original intent of these were to teach people values.

http://www.history.com/news/how-the-u-s-got-so-many-confederate-monuments

“All of those monuments were there to teach values to people,” Elliott says. “That’s why they put them in the city squares. That’s why they put them in front of state buildings.” Many earlier memories had instead been placed in cemeteries.


I'm not saying the shouldn't come down in celebration of freedom. I believe if a town votes to do that then that should happen. I'm saying the original intent of these monuments was not meant to be bad.

Dude ... you left out the next part of that quote:

“All of those monuments were there to teach values to people,” Elliott says. “That’s why they put them in the city squares. That’s why they put them in front of state buildings.” Many earlier memories had instead been placed in cemeteries.

The values these monuments stood for, he says, included a “glorification of the cause of the Civil War.”

Right, but was slavery the only cause of the civil war? If it was the only cause then I've been taught wrong all these years.

campgottagopee wrote

Right, but was slavery the only cause of the civil war?

Fair point, though the overall tone of the article you referenced seems to be linking construction of these monuments to issues related to race.

It did. Here's a more objective (sticking with the thread title) article. The civil war is truly fascinating to me.

http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/beyond-the-textbook/23912


Conclusion
The notion that slave labor for cotton fields caused the Civil War has been reinforced by textbooks and fictional narratives for more than a century. Historians, however, argue for a more nuanced, complex understanding. The Civil War was fought for many reasons, not solely or even primarily because of the growing importance of cotton on southern farms. Moving away from economic differences and cotton as simplistic causes leads to a more complex and far more interesting story.

campgottagopee wrote

Right, but was slavery the only cause of the civil war? If it was the only cause then I've been taught wrong all these years.

Are you referring to the states' rights argument?  That's what you say when your side loses at the federal level.  It doesn't pass the laugh test.
So yes, you were taught wrong. Maybe that's another reason the monuments should come down.

mm

The Civil War was about slavery.

Suggesting that it wasn't about slavery is certainly an opinion, and it just so happens to be the same opinion of White Supremecists and traitors.

Who's suggesting the civil war wasn't about slavery? Slavery was certainly a part of the civil war but not the only reason.

Milo Maltbie wrote

 
So yes, you were taught wrong. Maybe that's another reason the monuments should come down.

mm

There you have it. Problem solved right over the internet. Nice work MM

campgottagopee wrote

Who's suggesting the civil war wasn't about slavery? Slavery was certainly a part of the civil war but not the only reason.

You won't get an argument from me on this!

Attn CampDasieyDuke,

Uncle Jesse, Bo, Luke and Cooter were not real.  The Dukes of Hazard was a fictional TV show