By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Question for Confederate Supporters

numberwang said:

Not so bold, beautiful and brave anymore, huh? Weird how that works.

Would you sign this partition? Condemning slavery by Washington and Mohamed. Easy cause, it's about slavery after all.

"Some unnamed people on a street somewhere had an inconsistent opinion, therefore OP is a hypocrite!"

And really, what kind of Muslim would propose a Muhammad statue?



Love and tolerate.

Around the Network
K98632 said:

As someone who has lived in the north my entire life, hate the Confederacy, and is married to a black man, I do not support destroying these statues. I feel your summary of being against removing these statues are too simplistic. It isn't about avoiding a very specific type of civil war that you talk about, but rather a display/showcase that good their time can be wrong, and what we can take away from that. In these cases, the ideas of how people can view their fellow humans, and perhaps a self reflection of ones self. I think as a good middle point moving these statues to a more historical site, such as Civil War battlefields, local museums, etc. is a good middle ground that I could get behind.

The thing is, museums don't want them. They are a burden on them. And I don't blame them. These statues have no historical value. They were erected way later (not even immediately after the civil war) and they only serve one purpose: glorification. Get rid of them, learn about history from a book.



KLAMarine said:

>When you say "extricate", what do you mean?

From Merriam-Webster:

extricate
ex·​tri·​cate | ˈek-strə-ˌkāt
extricated; extricating

transitive verb

1 : to free or remove from an entanglement or difficulty
2a : to distinguish from a related thing
  b archaic : unravel


In other words, you cannot remove or separate the symbol from the ideology it symbolizes. The Soviet hammer & sickle symbolizes what the USSR represented, i.e., communism. Nazi iconography symbolizes what Nazi Germany represented, i.e., fascism and anti-semitism. And Confederate flags and monuments symbolize what the Confederate States represented, i.e., slavery and white supremacy. The idea that someone can somehow whitewash Confederate symbols to cleanse them of those negative connotations is as preposterous as the idea that someone can somehow whitewash, say, an SS uniform of its negative connotations. Symbols mean things, and people can't simply ignore those meanings just because it reflects badly upon their ancestors and their cultural heritage. Some aspects of our heritage do not deserve to be honored or memorialized in any way.

Last edited by Shadow1980 - on 05 August 2020

I’m Canadian so I have no idea what the historical meaning is. That said if the flag just represented racism then I feel there would be no statues erected in the first place. Pretty sure there’s more meanings but one is pro-slavery and people aren’t wrong to blanket label the flag for just that.



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

Salnax said:
numberwang said:

Not so bold, beautiful and brave anymore, huh? Weird how that works.

Would you sign this partition? Condemning slavery by Washington and Mohamed. Easy cause, it's about slavery after all.

"Some unnamed people on a street somewhere had an inconsistent opinion, therefore OP is a hypocrite!"

And really, what kind of Muslim would propose a Muhammad statue?

Isn't pictures/statues kind of against one of the Muslim principles. If I remember correctly its that Muhammad didn't want glorification via image to become a centripetal part of Islam like it had become in Christianity. Though to get around this writers wrote the arabic language in calligraphy so that the words could become pictures when put in the right order. Please correct me if I'm wrong, it has been a long time since World History and Human Geography.



Around the Network
K98632 said:
Machiavellian said:

Not really clear what you are saying.  Are you saying the statues stand as a symbol of a time and its wrongs.  The problem with this view is that at no time in no country and definitely not in the US have we ever erect statues and monuments of people that reflect a bad time.  We erect statues and monuments to glorify people we respect and honor for what they stand for.  If you go to another country, with no knowledge of its history and you see statues and monuments of people, would the first thing come to your mind that this is a display showing what was wrong.  I highly doubt it.  Instead, if you were interested you would wonder, what did this person do that people wanted to honor that person.

I can agree that they do not all need to be destroyed but they all definitely need to be removed from public places paid for by the taxes of the citizens who live in those states.  Since they do have some historical significance as you suggested a historical site would be good for some and for the those mass produced statues they can be auctioned off since they were only erected for a totally different purpose.

No, I'm not saying that they were erected to reflect a bad time. I'm saying thats what they stand for in the here and now. Should Auscwitz been bulldozed? Today it stands as a symbol of horrible things to learn from. I think people get too hung up on why these statues were raised rather than what they are today.

The walls of Auschwitz still stand as a reminder, along with memorials to the victims. What you won't find at the Auschwitz memorial are statues of Hitler, Himmler, Eichmann, Rudolf Hoss, or any other Nazi figure. Any such statuary would have been destroyed by the Allies during the occupation as a warning to the Germans not to continue to glorify the Nazi regime, and erecting statues of those figures as part of the memorial would be considered to be disrespectful to the people who were murdered at Auschwitz and their surviving family members. 



Shadow1980 said:
KLAMarine said:

>When you say "extricate", what do you mean?

From Merriam-Webster:

extricate
ex·​tri·​cate | ˈek-strə-ˌkāt
extricated; extricating

transitive verb

1 : to free or remove from an entanglement or difficulty
2a : to distinguish from a related thing
  b archaic : unravel


In other words, you cannot remove or separate the symbol from the ideology it symbolizes. The Soviet hammer & sickle symbolizes what the USSR represented, i.e., communism. Nazi iconography symbolizes what Nazi Germany represented, i.e., fascism and anti-semitism. And Confederate flags and monuments symbolize what the Confederate States represented, i.e., slavery and white supremacy. The idea that someone can somehow whitewash Confederate symbols to cleanse them of those negative connotations is as preposterous as the idea that someone can somehow whitewash, say, an SS uniform of its negative connotations. Symbols mean things, and people can't simply ignore those meanings just because it reflects badly upon their ancestors and their cultural heritage. Some aspects of our heritage do not deserve to be honored or memorialized in any way.

"In other words, you cannot remove or separate the symbol from the ideology it symbolizes."

>I'm not sure about this: the swastika represents a vile ideology in one part of the world, in another it's a Buddhist/Hindu/ symbol.

Here's a swastika found on a stone dating back to the 9th century.

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

I highly doubt Hitler's NSDAP in the 20th century had any influence on this rendition and is it impossible, centuries from now, the swastika might be repurposed by some other group or groups not at all linked to Germany's NSDAP? The swastika has a very varied history per Wikipedia and these new groups could go on to redefine the meaning of the symbol to something more benign.

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

Edit: NAACP!? Bahahaha! NSDAP! Fixing my mistake asap!

Last edited by KLAMarine - on 13 August 2020

KLAMarine said:

"In other words, you cannot remove or separate the symbol from the ideology it symbolizes."

>I'm not sure about this: the swastika represents a vile ideology in one part of the world, in another it's a Buddhist/Hindu/ symbol.

Here's a swastika found on a stone dating back to the 9th century.

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

I highly doubt Hitler's NAACP in the 20th century had any influence on this rendition and is it impossible, centuries from now, the swastika might be repurposed by some other group or groups not at all linked to Germany's NAACP? The swastika has a very varied history per Wikipedia and these new groups could go on to redefine the meaning of the symbol to something more benign.

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

You're being pedantic.  He didn't say a symbol is exclusive to a single given ideology but that the ideology and the symbol for which it represents cannot be separated.

A Hindu swastika is not a Nazi swastika because their symbology is wholly different. Same with the Christian Cross and the Southern Cross. Or the Iron Cross and the Cross Pattée.

As for your suggestion that another group could repurpose the symbol for something benign, that's highly unlikely given the global awareness of the Nazi usage of the symbol.  Old world symbology wasn't so well known globally so multiple groups using the same symbol for various uses was common. That symbol will still be well known with the association of the Nazi party even centuries from now.  To say nothing of how silly of a hypothetical that is to begin with.  We know what it is associated with now.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

numberwang said:

1). Not so bold, beautiful and brave anymore, huh? Weird how that works.

2). Would you sign this partition? Condemning slavery by Washington and 3). Mohamed. Easy cause, it's about slavery after all.

1). I don't even know what you're trying to say with this. Bold, beautiful and brave?

2). Yes. I'd sign the petition to bring down Washington statues and have them placed in museums

3). No, I wouldn't sign this petition because there are no statues of Mohammad.  Funny how Ami only shows the footage of people that didn't know that.  Oh, and look at you AGAIN deflecting to religion.

4). Now go make your own thread about Mohammad or get back on topic.  Official warning.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

badskywalker said:
Salnax said:

"Some unnamed people on a street somewhere had an inconsistent opinion, therefore OP is a hypocrite!"

And really, what kind of Muslim would propose a Muhammad statue?

Isn't pictures/statues kind of against one of the Muslim principles. If I remember correctly its that Muhammad didn't want glorification via image to become a centripetal part of Islam like it had become in Christianity. Though to get around this writers wrote the arabic language in calligraphy so that the words could become pictures when put in the right order. Please correct me if I'm wrong, it has been a long time since World History and Human Geography.

Exactly. Though a few sects are less strict about it, and the occasional loophole is tolerated, depictions of Muhammad are seen as sacrilege. Which makes the whole "banning statues of Muhammad" thing so strange, as if it is meant to create controversy rather than address any real statues.



Love and tolerate.