|
Post by **Angie** on Jun 7, 2017 0:06:56 GMT
I've been told that the phrase "War of Northern Aggression" is racist.
I've not heard the phrase since high school, and all I remember is that that phrase is what many Southerners called the Civil War.
I googled some but I'm obviously looking up the wrong thing because I'm not finding an explanation.
|
|
|
Post by littlemama on Jun 7, 2017 0:08:07 GMT
It is what southerners called the Civil War.
|
|
|
Post by chirpingcricket on Jun 7, 2017 0:16:57 GMT
Well, I was an adult before I ever heard "the war of northern aggression," so it's not really a common Southern term for the Civil War. I grew up in Georgia (Social Circle, to be exact, and Sherman marched right through it and didn't burn it all down), and then moved to Tennessee. It was in Tennessee, during college, that I first heard the term.
I think it oversimplifies the complex issues of the mid-1800's and downplays the part that slavery -- and therefore institutionalized racism -- played in the lead-up to the Civil War. In that sense, yes, it can be seen as racism, even though it is not an overtly racist epithet. It ignores the Confederacy's tenacious grip on social morés that allowed it to rationalize slavery.
Hm. Food for thought. I really had not thought of it as a racist slur, but since the Confederate flag is a racist symbol/slur, then yes, I can see how the term "war of northern aggression" can be seen as racist.
Also -- just spitballin' here, but isn't it a little hilarious that the term accuses the north of aggression, when it was the south that instigated the war by seceding? Is secession not inherently aggressive? Hm.
|
|
georgiapea
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,846
Jun 27, 2014 18:02:10 GMT
|
Post by georgiapea on Jun 7, 2017 0:18:04 GMT
I'd say no, not racist. Northern Aggression refers to the opposition of the Union side to continued slavery and their desire to promote non slave ways of working the land. So in that context it is the opposite of racism.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jun 7, 2017 0:21:16 GMT
Had the South won, it probably would have been called that.
Different sides have different names for wars. My assumption is that if someone is calling the Civil War that, they probably wish the South would have won and that would lead me assume that the person was probably racist.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 17:26:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 0:24:28 GMT
I personally don't view it as racist. It is historically inaccurate, however.
|
|
|
Post by **Angie** on Jun 7, 2017 0:26:02 GMT
It is what southerners called the Civil War. Right. I'd never heard that it was racist, though.
|
|
|
Post by chances on Jun 7, 2017 0:37:18 GMT
downplays the part that slavery -- and therefore institutionalized racism -- played in the lead-up to the Civil War. In that sense, yes, it can be seen as racism, even though it is not an overtly racist epithet. I think this just about covers it
|
|
|
Post by busy on Jun 7, 2017 0:39:33 GMT
downplays the part that slavery -- and therefore institutionalized racism -- played in the lead-up to the Civil War. In that sense, yes, it can be seen as racism, even though it is not an overtly racist epithet. I think this just about covers it Yup
|
|
|
Post by Amelia Bedelia on Jun 7, 2017 0:41:01 GMT
I'd say no, not racist. Northern Aggression refers to the opposition of the Union side to continued slavery and their desire to promote non slave ways of working the land. So in that context it is the opposite of racism. I think it's the downplaying of slavery and racist issues that makes it racist, not that the north was racist. It's the lack of acknowledgment that the south did anything to provoke the war, and that people who call it that are justifying (thats not the right word but I'm on pain meds and can't think of what I'm trying to say) that way of life. Granny on the Beverly hillbillies called it the war of northern aggression. That's the first time I heard it when I was a kid. Some of my grandpa's old friends would say it occasionally and I think I heard my great grandma say it a time or two. ETA: I'm not sure the phrase itself is racist, but I've only ever heard it said seriously by people who were racist.
|
|
eleezybeth
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,784
Jun 28, 2014 20:42:01 GMT
|
Post by eleezybeth on Jun 7, 2017 0:48:28 GMT
I've only heard it used with dripping sarcasm.
|
|
|
Post by melanell on Jun 7, 2017 0:55:29 GMT
The only time I have ever even seen that term was in a history book.
I thought of it as propaganda at the time. I never knew that anyone considered it to be racist, but again, it's not something I have ever given much thought to since it's simply not something I have ever heard anyone actually say.
|
|
|
Post by **Angie** on Jun 7, 2017 1:03:27 GMT
I'd say no, not racist. Northern Aggression refers to the opposition of the Union side to continued slavery and their desire to promote non slave ways of working the land. So in that context it is the opposite of racism. I think it's the downplaying of slavery and racist issues that makes it racist, not that the north was racist. It's the lack of acknowledgment that the south did anything to provoke the war, and that people who call it that are justifying (thats not the right word but I'm on pain meds and can't think of what I'm trying to say) that way of life. Granny on the Beverly hillbillies called it the war of northern aggression. That's the first time I heard it when I was a kid. Some of my grandpa's old friends would say it occasionally and I think I heard my great grandma say it a time or two. ETA: I'm not sure the phrase itself is racist, but I've only ever heard it said seriously by people who were racist. Thank you, I now understand. I was told I wouldn't understand because I'm not a "person of color". Then I got booted from the group.
|
|
|
Post by disneypal on Jun 7, 2017 1:18:04 GMT
No, not considered racist
|
|
|
Post by Amelia Bedelia on Jun 7, 2017 1:43:12 GMT
I think it's the downplaying of slavery and racist issues that makes it racist, not that the north was racist. It's the lack of acknowledgment that the south did anything to provoke the war, and that people who call it that are justifying (thats not the right word but I'm on pain meds and can't think of what I'm trying to say) that way of life. Granny on the Beverly hillbillies called it the war of northern aggression. That's the first time I heard it when I was a kid. Some of my grandpa's old friends would say it occasionally and I think I heard my great grandma say it a time or two. ETA: I'm not sure the phrase itself is racist, but I've only ever heard it said seriously by people who were racist. Thank you, I now understand. I was told I wouldn't understand because I'm not a "person of color". Then I got booted from the group. I'm sorry that happened. I'm glad what I said made sense. I thought about it some more and came up with this. Back to the post I quoted, i think the fact that it took aggression/war to end those things, and that people STILL focus on the aggression rather than the underlying issues is why it's racist. Not that PP is racist, just using her post so I don't have to type it.
|
|
|
Post by CarolinaGirl71 on Jun 7, 2017 1:50:40 GMT
I've only heard it used with dripping sarcasm. and I never heard the phrase until I was an adult.
|
|
tduby1
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,979
Jun 27, 2014 18:32:45 GMT
|
Post by tduby1 on Jun 7, 2017 2:14:03 GMT
I've never heard that phrase before today.
|
|
QueenoftheSloths
Drama Llama
Member Since January 2004, 2,698 forum posts PeaNut Number: 122614 PeaBoard Title: StuckOnPeas
Posts: 5,955
Jun 26, 2014 0:29:24 GMT
|
Post by QueenoftheSloths on Jun 7, 2017 3:41:24 GMT
I am starting to feel like all these charges of racism in connection with the Civil War are getting out of control. Yes, displaying the Confederate flag is not appropriate. But some of these monuments that are being taken down are commemorating dead soldiers, the vast majority of whom were not slave owners. Is it wrong to remember and honor people who died fighting for causes they believed in, just because SOME of the people were fighting to keep slaves? I read about a museum that was forced to close because it had Confederate items displayed. Isn't a museum where these items SHOULD be displayed? Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. Here in Minnesota, the powers that be have decided to rename a lake because the person it was named after was pro slavery. Are we now going to have to rename everything named after anyone who owned slaves? Just one example, Washington DC. If we can remember the good things that George Washington did, and revere him as the Father of our Country, why can't we do that in other cases? Who decides who gets condemned and who gets a pass?
|
|
|
Post by melanell on Jun 7, 2017 12:24:28 GMT
I've never heard that phrase before today. I forgot all about it until I read it here. It's one of those things where it's been so darn long since I've come across something that without a reminder, my brain doesn't typically even bring up the fact that I've ever provided it with that info in the first place. Save
|
|
|
Post by melanell on Jun 7, 2017 12:45:20 GMT
Is it wrong to remember and honor people who died fighting for causes they believed in, just because SOME of the people were fighting to keep slaves? I read about a museum that was forced to close because it had Confederate items displayed. Isn't a museum where these items SHOULD be displayed? Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. I definitely think it is wrong to ask museums not to show confederate items. That IS part of our history and removing proof of it from our museums makes no sense to me at all. I wouldn't want them to remove evidence of any time or place in which one group of humans was targeted by another. Yes, we do need to try to learn from these past mistakes. I also think that there were people fighting for the South who were barely more than boys following their older relatives into war. And that they weren't necessarily even "fighting for causes they believed in". In many cases they were likely fighting because they had been told that it was the right thing to do or even because they were strongly pressured to join. And for those living in border areas, it was probably an even more difficult choice to make, because they likely faced pressure from both sides. And to be fair, I think there were plenty of men (of all ages) on both sides who fought without really having any strong thoughts about the issue of slavery. They weren't receiving news the way we do now and many of them were working all day every day just to get by. That's all they spent time thinking about . They were just trying to do "the right thing" when they joined the fighting and it was their local leaders who were letting them know what the "right thing" was, partly with phrases like this. You tell people that the aggressive northerners are coming after us and we need to defend ourselves, and you effectively rile people up, whether they had ever given much thought to the issues at hand or not. While in the northern states, people were being warned that if the South left the union we'd be a weakened country and it would be dangerous for everyone. Those pushing for the war knew that when a passion for the issues fails to get people involved, scare tactics generally still work. Ultimately, I don't know what to say about the memorials. But I do think that not every southerner who fought was pro-slavery. ETA: To clarify...I'm not in favor of keeping memorials or statues glorifying Confederate generals or war "heroes". But I am not entirely sure how I feel about memorials placed that are about the death of civil war soldiers in general. I know that scattered here and there all over the place here in the northern states you can find a memorial to citizens from one town or another who died in one war or another. They are typically no more than a sign or stone with a list of names and a note that they died during the such and such war. They don't, to me, anyway, glorify the given war, or even express agreement with it. I see them as something initially placed more for the families than anything else. So if some little southern town has a memorial for 10 local men who died in the civil war, to me that isn't quite the same as a giant statue in the middle of a public square. While my initial feeling is still one of unease knowing what their "side" of the war stood for, but when I get down to individuals, that's when part of me can't help but wonder what they even thought of their "side" at the time. SaveSave
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 5, 2024 17:26:40 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2017 12:47:23 GMT
Perhaps the US civil war should be called "The War of Southern Subjugation of Human Beings".
|
|
|
Post by myboysnme on Jun 7, 2017 13:10:29 GMT
I am starting to feel like all these charges of racism in connection with the Civil War are getting out of control. Yes, displaying the Confederate flag is not appropriate. But some of these monuments that are being taken down are commemorating dead soldiers, the vast majority of whom were not slave owners. Is it wrong to remember and honor people who died fighting for causes they believed in, just because SOME of the people were fighting to keep slaves? I read about a museum that was forced to close because it had Confederate items displayed. Isn't a museum where these items SHOULD be displayed? Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. Here in Minnesota, the powers that be have decided to rename a lake because the person it was named after was pro slavery. Are we now going to have to rename everything named after anyone who owned slaves? Just one example, Washington DC. If we can remember the good things that George Washington did, and revere him as the Father of our Country, why can't we do that in other cases? Who decides who gets condemned and who gets a pass? Yes, it is absolutely right to take down statues of traitors to the United States of America, who took up arms against the US. That is what people who do that are called. Those statues were raised as a direct result of white southerners' desires to glorify what they did in order to use yet another tool to oppress people of color. When a statue is raised it glorifies someone who fought to keep people in slavery. They should never have been put up in the first place, and most were constructed in the 20th century during Jim Crow and the KKK.
George Santayana's often used quote I doubt was ever meant to say, "Make sure you hang onto Confederate glorification so you never do it again." In Nurnberg Germany you can barely see any evidence that the Nazi regime ruled supreme. They do not glorify it in any way. Not at all. Robert E Lee's Army lost, and there is no place for glorification of those who caused and perpetuated destruction of their own countries.
I firmly believe it doesn't matter what any one individual believed. They took up arms against the US. Just about every northerner was racist as possible, but southerners deciding they wanted to have states control the subjugation of people of color to the extent that they would destroy the US is nothing to wave any flag of pride about.
|
|
|
Post by not2peased on Jun 7, 2017 13:15:43 GMT
I'd say no, not racist. Northern Aggression refers to the opposition of the Union side to continued slavery and their desire to promote non slave ways of working the land. So in that context it is the opposite of racism. I think it's the downplaying of slavery and racist issues that makes it racist, not that the north was racist. It's the lack of acknowledgment that the south did anything to provoke the war, and that people who call it that are justifying (thats not the right word but I'm on pain meds and can't think of what I'm trying to say) that way of life. Granny on the Beverly hillbillies called it the war of northern aggression. That's the first time I heard it when I was a kid. Some of my grandpa's old friends would say it occasionally and I think I heard my great grandma say it a time or two. ETA: I'm not sure the phrase itself is racist, but I've only ever heard it said seriously by people who were racist. agreed
|
|
Dani-Mani
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,706
Jun 28, 2014 17:36:35 GMT
|
Post by Dani-Mani on Jun 7, 2017 13:31:33 GMT
I am starting to feel like all these charges of racism in connection with the Civil War are getting out of control. Yes, displaying the Confederate flag is not appropriate. But some of these monuments that are being taken down are commemorating dead soldiers, the vast majority of whom were not slave owners. Is it wrong to remember and honor people who died fighting for causes they believed in, just because SOME of the people were fighting to keep slaves? I read about a museum that was forced to close because it had Confederate items displayed. Isn't a museum where these items SHOULD be displayed? Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. Here in Minnesota, the powers that be have decided to rename a lake because the person it was named after was pro slavery. Are we now going to have to rename everything named after anyone who owned slaves? Just one example, Washington DC. If we can remember the good things that George Washington did, and revere him as the Father of our Country, why can't we do that in other cases? Who decides who gets condemned and who gets a pass? So using that logic, Hitler could have a statue in Germany, right? And no, as a back woman, the war of northern aggression isn't even a blip on my radar and I'm pretty confident I've used the term myself once or twice.
|
|
|
Post by dulcemama on Jun 7, 2017 14:10:05 GMT
I am starting to feel like all these charges of racism in connection with the Civil War are getting out of control. Yes, displaying the Confederate flag is not appropriate. But some of these monuments that are being taken down are commemorating dead soldiers, the vast majority of whom were not slave owners. Is it wrong to remember and honor people who died fighting for causes they believed in, just because SOME of the people were fighting to keep slaves? I read about a museum that was forced to close because it had Confederate items displayed. Isn't a museum where these items SHOULD be displayed? Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. Here in Minnesota, the powers that be have decided to rename a lake because the person it was named after was pro slavery. Are we now going to have to rename everything named after anyone who owned slaves? Just one example, Washington DC. If we can remember the good things that George Washington did, and revere him as the Father of our Country, why can't we do that in other cases? Who decides who gets condemned and who gets a pass? Yes, it is absolutely right to take down statues of traitors to the United States of America, who took up arms against the US. That is what people who do that are called. Those statues were raised as a direct result of white southerners' desires to glorify what they did in order to use yet another tool to oppress people of color. When a statue is raised it glorifies someone who fought to keep people in slavery. They should never have been put up in the first place, and most were constructed in the 20th century during Jim Crow and the KKK.
George Santayana's often used quote I doubt was ever meant to say, "Make sure you hang onto Confederate glorification so you never do it again." In Nurnberg Germany you can barely see any evidence that the Nazi regime ruled supreme. They do not glorify it in any way. Not at all. Robert E Lee's Army lost, and there is no place for glorification of those who caused and perpetuated destruction of their own countries.
I firmly believe it doesn't matter what any one individual believed. They took up arms against the US. Just about every northerner was racist as possible, but southerners deciding they wanted to have states control the subjugation of people of color to the extent that they would destroy the US is nothing to wave any flag of pride about.
Bravo!! Very well put.
|
|
used2scrap
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,034
Jan 29, 2016 3:02:55 GMT
|
Post by used2scrap on Jun 7, 2017 14:26:23 GMT
amp.nola.com/v1/articles/20728649/mayor_landrieu_speech_confeder.ampNew Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu gave a historic speech at Gallier Hall on Friday, May 19, 2017 as the final of four Confederate monuments was taken down at Lee Circle just blocks away. So ended a process Landrieu began in 2015, when at his request the City Council declared the monuments public nuisances. Lawsuits and controversy slowed the process, but the four targeted monuments came down in a 26-day period that ended just hours after his speech. Here is the full text of the speech, as provided by the mayor's office: Thank you for coming. The soul of our beloved City is deeply rooted in a history that has evolved over thousands of years; rooted in a diverse people who have been here together every step of the way - for both good and for ill. It is a history that holds in its heart the stories of Native Americans - the Choctaw , Houma Nation, the Chitimacha . Of Hernando de Soto , Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle , the Acadians, the Islenos, the enslaved people from Senegambia, Free People of Colorix, the Haitians, the Germans, both the empires of France and Spain. The Italians, the Irish, the Cubans, the south and central Americans, the Vietnamese and so many more. You see - New Orleans is truly a city of many nations, a melting pot, a bubbling cauldron of many cultures. There is no other place quite like it in the world that so eloquently exemplifies the uniquely American motto: e pluribus unum - out of many we are one. But there are also other truths about our city that we must confront. New Orleans was America's largest slave market: a port where hundreds of thousands of souls were bought, sold and shipped up the Mississippi River to lives of forced labor of misery of rape, of torture . America was the place where nearly 4000 of our fellow citizens were lynched, 540 alone in Louisiana; where the courts enshrined 'separate but equal'; where Freedom riders coming to New Orleans were beaten to a bloody pulp. So when people say to me that the monuments in question are history, well what I just described is real history as well, and it is the searing truth. And it immediately begs the questions; why there are no slave ship monuments, no prominent markers on public land to remember the lynchings or the slave blocks; nothing to remember this long chapter of our lives; the pain, the sacrifice, the shame... all of it happening on the soil of New Orleans. So for those self-appointed defenders of history and the monuments, they are eerily silent on what amounts to this historical malfeasance, a lie by omission. There is a difference between remembrance of history and reverence of it. For America and New Orleans, it has been a long, winding road, marked by great tragedy and great triumph. But we cannot be afraid of our truth. As President George W. Bush said at the dedication ceremony for the National Museum of African American History & Culture, "A great nation does not hide its history. It faces its flaws and corrects them." So today I want to speak about why we chose to remove these four monuments to the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, but also how and why this process can move us towards healing and understanding of each other. So, let's start with the facts. The historic record is clear, the Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and P.G.T. Beauregard statues were not erected just to honor these men, but as part of the movement which became known as The Cult of the Lost Cause. This 'cult' had one goal - through monuments and through other means - to rewrite history to hide the truth, which is that the Confederacy was on the wrong side of humanity. First erected over 166 years after the founding of our city and 19 years after the end of the Civil War, the monuments that we took down were meant to rebrand the history of our city and the ideals of a defeated Confederacy. It is self-evident that these men did not fight for the United States of America, They fought against it. They may have been warriors, but in this cause they were not patriots. These statues are not just stone and metal. They are not just innocent remembrances of a benign history. These monuments purposefully celebrate a fictional, sanitized Confederacy; ignoring the death, ignoring the enslavement, and the terror that it actually stood for. After the Civil War, these statues were a part of that terrorism as much as a burning cross on someone's lawn; they were erected purposefully to send a strong message to all who walked in their shadows about who was still in charge in this city. Should you have further doubt about the true goals of the Confederacy, in the very weeks before the war broke out, the Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, made it clear that the Confederate cause was about maintaining slavery and white supremacy. He said in his now famous 'corner-stone speech' that the Confederacy's "cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." Now, with these shocking words still ringing in your ears... I want to try to gently peel from your hands the grip on a false narrative of our history that I think weakens us. And make straight a wrong turn we made many years ago -- we we can more closely connect with integrity to the founding principles of our nation and forge a clearer and straighter path toward a better city and a more perfect union. Last year, President Barack Obama echoed these sentiments about the need to contextualize and remember all our history. He recalled a piece of stone, a slave auction block engraved with a marker commemorating a single moment in 1830 when Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay stood and spoke from it. President Obama said, "Consider what this artifact tells us about history... on a stone where day after day for years, men and women... bound and bought and sold and bid like cattle on a stone worn down by the tragedy of over a thousand bare feet. For a long time the only thing we considered important, the singular thing we once chose to commemorate as history with a plaque were the unmemorable speeches of two powerful men." A piece of stone - one stone. Both stories were history. One story told. One story forgotten or maybe even purposefully ignored. As clear as it is for me today... for a long time, even though I grew up in one of New Orleans' most diverse neighborhoods, even with my family's long proud history of fighting for civil rights... I must have passed by those monuments a million times without giving them a second thought. So I am not judging anybody, I am not judging people. We all take our own journey on race. I just hope people listen like I did when my dear friend Wynton Marsalis helped me see the truth. He asked me to think about all the people who have left New Orleans because of our exclusionary attitudes. Another friend asked me to consider these four monuments from the perspective of an African American mother or father trying to explain to their fifth grade daughter who Robert E. Lee is and why he stands atop of our beautiful city. Can you do it? Can you look into that young girl's eyes and convince her that Robert E. Lee is there to encourage her? Do you think she will feel inspired and hopeful by that story? Do these monuments help her see a future with limitless potential? Have you ever thought that if her potential is limited, yours and mine are too? We all know the answer to these very simple questions. When you look into this child's eyes is the moment when the searing truth comes into focus for us. This is the moment when we know what is right and what we must do. We can't walk away from this truth. And I knew that taking down the monuments was going to be tough, but you elected me to do the right thing, not the easy thing and this is what that looks like. So relocating these Confederate monuments is not about taking something away from someone else. This is not about politics, this is not about blame or retaliation. This is not a naive quest to solve all our problems at once. This is however about showing the whole world that we as a city and as a people are able to acknowledge, understand, reconcile and most importantly, choose a better future for ourselves making straight what has been crooked and making right what was wrong. Otherwise, we will continue to pay a price with discord, with division and yes with violence. To literally put the Confederacy on a pedestal in our most prominent places of honor is an inaccurate recitation of our full past. It is an affront to our present, and it is a bad prescription for our future. History cannot be changed. It cannot be moved like a statue. What is done is done. The Civil War is over, and the Confederacy lost and we are better for it. Surely we are far enough removed from this dark time to acknowledge that the cause of the Confederacy was wrong. And in the second decade of the 21st century, asking African Americans - or anyone else - to drive by property that they own; occupied by reverential statues of men who fought to destroy the country and deny that person's humanity seems perverse and absurd. Centuries old wounds are still raw because they never healed right in the first place. Here is the essential truth. We are better together than we are apart. Indivisibility is our essence. Isn't this the gift that the people of New Orleans have given to the world? We radiate beauty and grace in our food, in our music, in our architecture, in our joy of life, in our celebration of death; in everything that we do. We gave the world this funky thing called jazz, the most uniquely American art form that is developed across the ages from different cultures. Think about second lines, think about Mardi Gras, think about muffaletta, think about the Saints, gumbo, red beans and rice. By God, just think. All we hold dear is created by throwing everything in the pot; creating, producing something better; everything a product of our historic diversity. We are proof that out of many we are one - and better for it! Out of many we are one - and we really do love it! And yet, we still seem to find so many excuses for not doing the right thing. Again, remember President Bush's words, "A great nation does not hide its history. It faces its flaws and corrects them." We forget, we deny how much we really depend on each other, how much we need each other. We justify our silence and inaction by manufacturing noble causes that marinate in historical denial. We still find a way to say 'wait'/not so fast, but like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, "wait has almost always meant never." We can't wait any longer. We need to change. And we need to change now. No more waiting. This is not just about statues, this is about our attitudes and behavior as well. If we take these statues down and don't change to become a more open and inclusive society this would have all been in vain. While some have driven by these monuments every day and either revered their beauty or failed to see them at all, many of our neighbors and fellow Americans see them very clearly. Many are painfully aware of the long shadows their presence casts; not only literally but figuratively. And they clearly receive the message that the Confederacy and the cult of the lost cause intended to deliver. Earlier this week, as the cult of the lost cause statue of P.G.T Beauregard came down, world renowned musician Terence Blanchard stood watch, his wife Robin and their two beautiful daughters at their side. Terence went to a high school on the edge of City Park named after one of America's greatest heroes and patriots, John F. Kennedy. But to get there he had to pass by this monument to a man who fought to deny him his humanity. He said, "I've never looked at them as a source of pride... it's always made me feel as if they were put there by people who don't respect us. This is something I never thought I'd see in my lifetime. It's a sign that the world is changing." Yes, Terence, it is and it is long overdue. Now is the time to send a new message to the next generation of New Orleanians who can follow in Terence and Robin's remarkable footsteps. A message about the future, about the next 300 years and beyond; let us not miss this opportunity New Orleans and let us help the rest of the country do the same. Because now is the time for choosing. Now is the time to actually make this the City we always should have been, had we gotten it right in the first place. We should stop for a moment and ask ourselves - at this point in our history - after Katrina, after Rita, after Ike, after Gustav, after the national recession, after the BP oil catastrophe and after the tornado - if presented with the opportunity to build monuments that told our story or to curate these particular spaces... would these monuments be what we want the world to see? Is this really our story? We have not erased history; we are becoming part of the city's history by righting the wrong image these monuments represent and crafting a better, more complete future for all our children and for future generations. And unlike when these Confederate monuments were first erected as symbols of white supremacy, we now have a chance to create not only new symbols, but to do it together, as one people. In our blessed land we all come to the table of democracy as equals. We have to reaffirm our commitment to a future where each citizen is guaranteed the uniquely American gifts of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is what really makes America great and today it is more important than ever to hold fast to these values and together say a self-evident truth that out of many we are one. That is why today we reclaim these spaces for the United States of America. Because we are one nation, not two; indivisible with liberty and justice for all... not some. We all are part of one nation, all pledging allegiance to one flag, the flag of the United States of America. And New Orleanians are in... all of the way. It is in this union and in this truth that real patriotism is rooted and flourishes. Instead of revering a 4-year brief historical aberration that was called the Confederacy we can celebrate all 300 years of our rich, diverse history as a place named New Orleans and set the tone for the next 300 years. After decades of public debate, of anger, of anxiety, of anticipation, of humiliation and of frustration. After public hearings and approvals from three separate community led commissions . After two robust public hearings and a 6-1 vote by the duly elected New Orleans City Council. After review by 13 different federal and state judges . The full weight of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government has been brought to bear and the monuments in accordance with the law have been removed. So now is the time to come together and heal and focus on our larger task. Not only building new symbols, but making this city a beautiful manifestation of what is possible and what we as a people can become. Let us remember what the once exiled, imprisoned and now universally loved Nelson Mandela and what he said after the fall of apartheid. "If the pain has often been unbearable and the revelations shocking to all of us, it is because they indeed bring us the beginnings of a common understanding of what happened and a steady restoration of the nation's humanity." So before we part let us again state the truth clearly. The Confederacy was on the wrong side of history and humanity. It sought to tear apart our nation and subjugate our fellow Americans to slavery. This is the history we should never forget and one that we should never again put on a pedestal to be revered. As a community, we must recognize the significance of removing New Orleans' Confederate monuments. It is our acknowledgment that now is the time to take stock of, and then move past, a painful part of our history. Anything less would render generations of courageous struggle and soul-searching a truly lost cause. Anything less would fall short of the immortal words of our greatest President Abraham Lincoln, who with an open heart and clarity of purpose calls on us today to unite as one people when he said: "With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds...to do all which may achieve and cherish - a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations." Thank you.
|
|
schizo319
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,030
Jun 28, 2014 0:26:58 GMT
|
Post by schizo319 on Jun 7, 2017 14:31:16 GMT
I've only heard it used with dripping sarcasm. Ditto. And I grew up and live in Alabama.
|
|
|
Post by myboysnme on Jun 7, 2017 14:52:59 GMT
I am starting to feel like all these charges of racism in connection with the Civil War are getting out of control. Yes, displaying the Confederate flag is not appropriate. But some of these monuments that are being taken down are commemorating dead soldiers, the vast majority of whom were not slave owners. Is it wrong to remember and honor people who died fighting for causes they believed in, just because SOME of the people were fighting to keep slaves? I read about a museum that was forced to close because it had Confederate items displayed. Isn't a museum where these items SHOULD be displayed? Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. Here in Minnesota, the powers that be have decided to rename a lake because the person it was named after was pro slavery. Are we now going to have to rename everything named after anyone who owned slaves? Just one example, Washington DC. If we can remember the good things that George Washington did, and revere him as the Father of our Country, why can't we do that in other cases? Who decides who gets condemned and who gets a pass? So using that logic, Hitler could have a statue in Germany, right? And no, as a back woman, the war of northern aggression isn't even a blip on my radar and I'm pretty confident I've used the term myself once or twice. Excellent point and you can be absolutely sure there are no statues of him in Germany.
|
|
|
Post by birukitty on Jun 7, 2017 20:27:11 GMT
So using that logic, Hitler could have a statue in Germany, right? And no, as a back woman, the war of northern aggression isn't even a blip on my radar and I'm pretty confident I've used the term myself once or twice. Excellent point and you can be absolutely sure there are no statues of him in Germany. You are right, there are no statues of Hitler in Germany. But there are museums about the Nazi era, with Nazi propaganda, Nazi uniforms, and all sorts of Nazi items. In Nuremberg I believe (although I might be wrong as that is one of the cities I didn't visit on my recent journey) there is an entire museum dedicated to this era. I think Germany's decision to not glorify Hitler with statues anywhere but still retain Nazi items and display them in museums to educate people, especially young people is the best decision. There is truth in the statement, "Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it". Queenofsloths mentioned a museum that she'd read about that was forced to close because it had confederate items in it and that she felt a museum is where they should be displayed. I agree with her completely as did Melanell. We as a country are doing ourselves, our young people and generations that follow a huge disservice if we try to eradicate the evidence of our past be it a horrible horrific time period or not. This is why there is an Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum and why so many people of so many different nations visit every year. So it is never forgotten. We cannot erase our past any more than Germany can erase theirs. Nor should we. Slavery happened. It was horrific and it never should have. But it did. What we can do now is honor those who's lives were impacted and those who suffered so greatly by not celebrating it with statues to heros (I agree with that completely) but by erecting museums so their past is never forgotten.
|
|
|
Post by myboysnme on Jun 7, 2017 21:01:22 GMT
Excellent point and you can be absolutely sure there are no statues of him in Germany. You are right, there are no statues of Hitler in Germany. But there are museums about the Nazi era, with Nazi propaganda, Nazi uniforms, and all sorts of Nazi items. In Nuremberg I believe (although I might be wrong as that is one of the cities I didn't visit on my recent journey) there is an entire museum dedicated to this era. I think Germany's decision to not glorify Hitler with statues anywhere but still retain Nazi items and display them in museums to educate people, especially young people is the best decision. There is truth in the statement, "Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it". Queenofsloths mentioned a museum that she'd read about that was forced to close because it had confederate items in it and that she felt a museum is where they should be displayed. I agree with her completely as did Melanell. We as a country are doing ourselves, our young people and generations that follow a huge disservice if we try to eradicate the evidence of our past be it a horrible horrific time period or not. This is why there is an Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum and why so many people of so many different nations visit every year. So it is never forgotten. We cannot erase our past any more than Germany can erase theirs. Nor should we. Slavery happened. It was horrific and it never should have. But it did. What we can do now is honor those who's lives were impacted and those who suffered so greatly by not celebrating it with statues to heros (I agree with that completely) but by erecting museums so their past is never forgotten. The Capital of the state where I live has a large Museum of the Confederacy and the White House of the Confederacy is run I believe by the National Park Service. Museums by thoughtful and knowledgeable curators is a whole different entity than statues commemorating Confederate leaders.
|
|