• Kentucky Confederate Monument to be Removed after 120 Years
    71 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50238589]The monument is meant to honor the lives of the brave men who died during the American Civil War, not their respective Ideologies. It's a tribute to their valor and their loss of life fighting to defend their families and loved ones. The fact that you're comparing such a monument to an Ideological statue of Communist Dictators who only wanted to preserve their own fame, glory, and ego is disgusting. Because in doing so you belittle [I]every[/I] such monument. You belittle the monument revering the men who gave their lives at Iwo Jima to stop the spread of Japanese Imperialism and war crimes. You belittle the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier who reveres every soldier who gives his or her life without recognition, without their bodies being recovered or disfigured beyond recognition, whos families will never truly know if or how they died. You belittle the Memorial of the USS Arizona and the 1,102 Sailors and Marines it honors, victims of an unprovoked attack by the Japanese in the Battle of Pearl Harbor. Some monuments deserve to stand the test of time. Monuments like these, who honor those who selflessly laid down their lives in the defense of others, are those monuments. And they do not deserve to be compared to ego-driven 'selfies' of dictators and heads of state. These monuments 100% deserve to stand as a reminder of history. They deserve preservation.[/QUOTE] I see you couldn't even read the first sentence of my post. Or any of my follow ups. [QUOTE=plunger435;50237528]Which is why I said it doesn't necessarily apply to this. It should be based on meaning not just that someone bothered to put one up.[/QUOTE]
I've walked by that memorial tons of times. I didn't even know it was for Confederates and I guarantee you most people don't either. You see TONS of monuments that look like that here, I mean everywhere. Kentucky had an odd stance in the civil war, and I'd wager Shark Bones doesn't know shit about it judging from his super ignorant posts. Kentucky was neutral during the start of the war, but joined the Union side later on. Kentucky had one of the biggest familial splits, or brother on brother fighting. I'm not going to romanticize the Civil War but every confederate soldier wasn't a dirty nigger hanging racist devil. Basically, when it comes to talking about the Civil War, it always boils down to "it's complicated."
[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;50239096]I've walked by that memorial tons of times. I didn't even know it was for Confederates and I guarantee you most people don't either. You see TONS of monuments that look like that here, I mean everywhere. Kentucky had an odd stance in the civil war, and I'd wager Shark Bones doesn't know shit about it judging from his super ignorant posts. Kentucky was neutral during the start of the war, but joined the Union side later on. Kentucky had one of the biggest familial splits, or brother on brother fighting. I'm not going to romanticize the Civil War but every confederate soldier wasn't a dirty nigger hanging racist devil. Basically, when it comes to talking about the Civil War, it always boils down to "it's complicated."[/QUOTE] Kentucky operated under what we refer to as "Armed Neutrality." Officially, they were a Union state, but the secessionist movement was strong enough that a good number of men from Kentucky fought in official Confederate units during the war. A similar thing happened in Missouri, and to a lesser extent, Maryland. [editline]1st May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=TheDestroyerOfall;50238592]They were offered freedom to die fighting in place of whites. The view that they were willingly fighting for slavery is one of ignorance and it doesn't show anything but Confederate manipulation of blacks.[/QUOTE] Actually there were a number of free blacks and black slave owners as well who served in the Confederate armed forces. Most of the records were destroyed in the sieges of New Orleans and Richmond, but there's evidence to show that there were multiple free blacks serving in the Louisiana 1st Native Guard, though whether or not they saw service outside of New Orleans is debatable.
[QUOTE=Shark Bones;50237433]I live in Louisville, no shit has been lost. By now most of Kentucky has realized that the Confederacy is nothing to celebrate.[/QUOTE] I have trash neighbors who hang it like a curtain in their windows but I live in southeast,Ky so yeah...
[QUOTE=plunger435;50238918]I see you couldn't even read the first sentence of my post. Or any of my follow ups.[/QUOTE] I read it, but just because you said it doesn't make your statement any less ignorant. It's like prefacing something with "I'm not racist but..." And obviously you didn't read my entire post. So quick to judge, but you ignored the fact that I touched on your "It may not necessarily apply in this case but..." preface.
[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50240224]I read it, but just because you said it doesn't make your statement any less ignorant. It's like prefacing something with "I'm not racist but..." And obviously you didn't read my entire post. So quick to judge, but [B]you ignored the fact that I touched on your "It may not necessarily apply in this case but..." preface.[/B][/QUOTE] Because my post had absolutely nothing to do with the monument in question, it's about the idea of using 'history' as an excuse to keep any, possibly offensive and hurtful, monuments up is a bad idea. You base them on their merit and meaning, not just because it was put up a long time ago. Because even though you read that part of my post you still insisted I was comparing the two monuments even though I never said one way or another anything about the confederate one, only that the argument for history is meaningless. [QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50238589] Some monuments deserve to stand the test of time. Monuments like these, who honor those who selflessly laid down their lives in the defense of others, are those monuments. [B]And they do not deserve to be compared to ego-driven 'selfies' of dictators and heads of state.[/B] These monuments 100% deserve to stand as a reminder of history. They deserve preservation.[/QUOTE] How did it strike you from any of my other posts that I was comparing the confederates with dictators? Because I see me defending them instead. [QUOTE=plunger435;50237642]I'm not sure which history book you read that said the confederates all rounded the slaves and executed them. Not sure they would kill all those people they were fighting to keep.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=plunger435;50237666]Sorry, you said the confederates personally committed a genocide. That means they had to be the ones to do this, not all of America being blamed on the confederates.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=plunger435;50237683]You said the confederates were responsible for it.[/QUOTE]
Yaaaaay, more knee-jerk revisionist bullshit! That monument isn't even standing for the ideals of the Confederacy, it's merely a monument to fallen soldiers. C'mon now.
[QUOTE=Shark Bones;50237551]Both are responsible for the genocide of a large amount of people, so... yes I can?[/QUOTE] Oh, please, the Union army was closer to genocide with their tactics of abso-fucking-lutely obliterating the South. Confederacy supported slavery, but certainly not genocide. That said, I [I]will[/I] still compare Nazis to Confederate Soldiers in that they were a faction which chiefly supported immoral ideals. The intensity of those ideals aside, that principle is the same.
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50237556][url]http://www.thirdreichruins.com/memorials.htm[/url] Yeah really? Tell me all about how these don't exist/[/QUOTE] Notice it's memorials and monuments to the fallen, rather than the state it represented.
[QUOTE=LegndNikko;50241204]Oh, please, the Union army was closer to genocide with their tactics of abso-fucking-lutely obliterating the South. Confederacy supported slavery, but certainly not genocide. That said, I [I]will[/I] still compare Nazis to Confederate Soldiers in that they were a faction which chiefly supported immoral ideals. The intensity of those ideals aside, that principle is the same.[/QUOTE] "both supported immoral ideals" is so fucking generalized to compare the Confederates to the Nazis. I can compare you to Hitler because you were both a fan of breathing.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50242989]"both supported immoral ideals" is so fucking generalized to compare the Confederates to the Nazis. I can compare you to Hitler because you were both a fan of breathing.[/QUOTE] This, for two reasons. 1) Comparing two completely different ideological groups on a basis as thin as "They viewed another race as less than their own" when one literally set about the systematic extermination of an entire culture group as well as a bunch of subcultures, and the other just happened to have a work force that was falling out of favor at the time (But leading up to that time was deemed as 'acceptable', not saying it was but it wasn't an era of "This is completely fucking wrong wtf" like when the Nazis were committing ACTUAL GENOCIDE) 2) Lumping 100% of the soldiers that fought for that side into the same ideology, and vilifying them along with their leaders with the same level of hatred. To touch on #2 specifically, not all German soldiers during WWII were Nazis, just like not all (actually the vast majority of) Confederate soldiers during the Civil War were black-hating slave-owning white supremacists. The vast majority of Confederate soldiers were fighting for their home states. Not for the right to own slaves, but for the right to be free, and often just to prevent the Union from ransacking their farm, destroying their livelihood, and possibly raping their wives/daughters because they just happened to be on "the wrong side". I'm not going to argue that at least part of the Confederacy's reasons for splitting from the Union wasn't slaves, but I AM going to argue that that was not the reason that most of the soldiers fought against the Union invasion. Very very VERY few slave owners actually fought for the Confederacy. They didn't have to, they were rich fat cats that owned hundreds of acres of land. They were the social elite. They could hire soldiers, or offer their slaves freedom in exchange for them fighting on their behalf.
Owning slaves was extremely expensive and only the rich could manage it. Wars aren't fought by rich people, only for rich people. A vast, vast majority of confederate soldiers never owned a slave.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.