Furmanoid wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 7:50 pm
There is no slippery slope because Mr. Taggart imagines that the movement looks to him for guidance and will heed his sage advice as to which historical figures achieved acceptable levels of ideological purity. Apparently Washington, U. S. Grant, TR and Lincoln didn’t cut the mustard with Mr. Taggart, but we can hope that he will grant a reprieve to marble Jesuses.
It's fine if you disagree with me, but you really look foolish when you accuse me of things I have never said. Shockingly, comrade, I am not a Communist. And I didn't advocate removal of statues of Washington, Grant, Roosevelt or Lincoln ... in fact, advocating the opposite on this thread. To the extent you question the sincerity of my faith... I am going to assume that is not what you meant, and turn the other cheek on that one. I don't know you, and you don't know me. I'll avoid assumptions if you do.
I am acquainted with FUBear, and I like him. I am fine with his jokes, at my expense or otherwise. It is part of the site. As I said to him, it is clear that every statute removed or remaining has been done on my personal authority. As to Social Entropy, I am no sociologist, but it seems a valid theory. The election of 2016 is proof of it -- we do not need a Peruvian study.
You really haven't challenged my history, because it isn't wrong. In addition to being a good defender, Dr. O'Neill is a heckuva teacher.
Your contention that public display of monuments to the Lost Cause is some sort of necessity to understand history is simply not credible. How does the name of a football stadium teach us history? The monuments are, plainly stated, fiction -- the do not accurately reflect what happened, and they were put up in part to show black people under Jim Crow that they were subjugated. They were put up in the 1890s and 1900s, as Jim Crow laws were established to repress black people. In the same time, Thomas Dixon wrote a novel and play, which was adapted to The Birth of a Nation. The monuments and the movie serve the same purpose -- to create a new fictional history. To anyone who wanted to see it, it has long been obvious -- C. Vann Woodward wrote about it in 1955. The Lost Cause honors people like Hampton as "freedom fighters." The freedom they sought was the "freedom" not to be treated equally under law with black citizens, in blatant violation of the 14th Amendment. I don't think that should be honored, and I think we learn the truth better from reading it than from looking at statues.
Tell the truth about Wade Hampton. He was one of the largest slaveholders in the South, and he bought his rank. He coordinated with the Red Shirts in 1876, meeting with them in a brothel in Charleston. He pushed the Lost Cause myth. He is no hero, and the hagiography is misplaced, but Hagood was worse -- he executed prisoners of war who were black, considering them to be engaged in servile insurrection. And yet, he has a public building named for him.
As to Hampton, the park next to the Citadel is named for him. The park that was earlier named the Washington Race Course, in honor of the Father of Our Country. The park where the Confederates allowed more than 250 Union POWs to die of exposure during captivity. The park that freedmen repaired after the war, properly burying the dead, and building an archway saying "Martyrs of the Race Course." On May 1, 1865, 10,000 freedmen marched in the Park, including veterans of the 54th Massachusetts, to celebrate Decoration Day. This is an early inspiration for Memorial Day. Charleston allowed the cemetery to fall into disrepair, and the bodies had to be moved.
That park, that sacred ground, was named after Wade Hampton in the 1900s, because of the myth of the Lost Cause. He didn't do anything there. So, how are we making sure people know history? It appears we do so by avoiding mention of the actual events and naming the park, the final resting place for actual heroes, after someone who repressed voters and allowed his supporters to kill citizens to win an election by 1100 votes. That park should be Grant Park, or Lincoln Park, or Union Park, or even Denmark Vesey Park. At least then it would honor people who fought for freedom.
Comrade, if I lived in Russia, I would advocate taking down the statues honoring Lenin and Stalin. Because neither are worthy of public reverence.