Opinion How Is Keeping up Confederate Statues Patriotic?

How Is Keeping up Confederate Statues Patriotic?

By Ben Cohen
June 14, 2020


(JNS) — The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) agreed last week to the removal of a small number of headstones in U.S. military cemeteries that were engraved with the Nazi swastika and the Iron Cross.
The stones marked the graves of captive German soldiers who were interred at two cemeteries in this country after World War II—Fort Sam Houston National Cemetery in Texas and Fort Douglas Post Cemetery in Utah. In addition to the offending symbols, their headstones also carried the following inscription: “He died far from his home for the Führer, people and fatherland.”
One might have assumed that, given their content, removing the headstones would not have been an issue for the VA. In fact, the department’s first response was to insist that they remain in place. In a mid-May letter to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), an advocacy group that brought the headstones’ existence to light, the VA argued that it had a “duty” to preserve the markers. But then several members of Congress objected to the presence of the headstones, leading the department to reverse its initial decision. It was “understandably upsetting to our veterans and their families to see Nazi inscriptions near those who gave their lives for this nation,” VA Secretary Robert Wilkie acknowledged at the beginning of June. “That’s why the VA will initiate the process required to replace these POW headstones.”
GettyImages-1219300381-1287x858.jpg
RICHMOND, VA – JUNE 11: Workers remove a police memorial statue covered in red paint by protesters on June 11, 2020 in Richmond, Virginia. protesters also tore down statues of Christopher Columbus and Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of the America during the Civil War. (Photo by Zach Gibson/Getty Images)
Not surprisingly, amid the ongoing coronavirus pandemic and the Black Lives Matter protests sparked by the police murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis, the Nazi graves spat at the VA didn’t receive much media airplay. Still, the issues raised by this episode, along with its outcome, are relevant to the ongoing national clash over the continued presence of Confederate statues and war memorials in U.S. cities.
The last time that the visual baggage of the Confederacy animated the country to this extent was in 2017, with the violent white-supremacist show of force in Charlottesville, Va. Back then, as now, U.S. President Donald Trump made no secret of where he stood, using his Twitter feed to decry “the removal of our beautiful statues and monuments” and asking rhetorically, “Robert E Lee, Stonewall Jackson—who’s next, Washington, Jefferson?”
Trump made the same point in similar fashion amid the latest round of protests against racism, which have included widespread demands for the renaming of U.S. military bases named in honor of Confederate commanders. “These Monumental and very Powerful Bases have become part of a Great American Heritage, and a history of Winning, Victory, and Freedom,” he tweeted—again, glibly subsuming the secessionist, slave-owning Confederacy within the broad, triumphant sweep of American history.
church-trumpgettyimages-1216826599-2-482a56829b887b1a3bf8db7114aebec2d6ec7696-s1500-c85-1146x858.jpg
President Trump holds up a Bible outside of St. John’s Episcopal church across Lafayette Park in Washington, D.C., on Monday.
Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images
This is a deeply suspect line of argument, and the episode over the presence of Nazi headstones in our military cemeteries helps explain why.
In that example, what was being objected to was not the physical remains of the German POWs, but the horrendous manner in which that presence was acknowledged. Some neutral inscription on the headstones would have been respectful and civilized, and a far cry from the encomium to Hitler that ended up on them. With the removal of the headstones, an unseemly wrong—the presence of the symbols of a mortal enemy in the very locations where American veterans are buried—has been righted. And I would argue that the same moral logic applied here should apply to the Confederate memorabilia around us.
What was being objected to was not the physical remains of the German POWs, but the horrendous manner in which that presence was acknowledged.
Now, you might object that one cannot in decency compare the officers and soldiers of the Confederacy with the external enemy that was Nazi Germany. After all, many leading Confederates, including Braxton Bragg, for whom the famous base in North Carolina is named, and Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy, were honored veterans of the Mexican-American war of 1846-48, and considered to be great and sage patriots. The Civil War they helped initiate a little more than a decade later was not the result of outside aggression, according to this argument, but a tragic conflict within the American family that politics alone was not able to resolve.
This interpretation of history is one of the factors behind Trump’s vocal rejection of the removal of Confederate memorials. It might seem patriotic, but in reality, it isn’t—not least because the values and the vision of American society that the Confederacy represented had eventually to be defeated on the battlefield at what was, especially by the standards of that time, a staggering human cost.
In institutional terms, some current signs can be seen of a move against the commemoration of the Confederacy. Defense Secretary Mark Esper has mooted a “bipartisan discussion” on the renaming of military bases, while the U.S. Navy has outlawed the display of Confederate flags aboard its ships and in other facilities. But as the Jewish experience reminds us only too well, changes in institutional behavior aren’t necessarily mirrored in public opinion. Especially with Trump in the White House, the segment of opinion that twists its perverse regard for the Confederacy into an American value will continue to assert itself aggressively.
If we are no longer prepared to tolerate Nazi symbols as an ongoing presence in our military cemeteries, then we should treat the symbols of the Confederate betrayal of the United States in a similar manner.
The only response to this misrepresentation is to point to the historical record. “These bases are, after all, federal installations, home to soldiers who swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States,” the former head of the CIA, Gen. David Petraeus, wrote recently in The Atlantic. “The irony of training at bases named for those who took up arms against the United States, and for the right to enslave others, is inescapable to anyone paying attention.” If we are no longer prepared to tolerate Nazi symbols as an ongoing presence in our military cemeteries, then we should treat the symbols of the Confederate betrayal of the United States in a similar manner.
Ben Cohen is a New York City-based journalist and author who writes a weekly column on Jewish and international affairs for JNS.


 
Though I'm never in favor of destroying art, it's a pretty terrible thing to do no matter what reason the art was created, though I guess the 21st century already has plenty of that from reasons ranging from political distress to sheer incompetence, like when King Tut's beard was broken off and epoxy'd back on in 2015:

Ver archivo adjunto 1378473
damn they literally reattached tutankhamuns chin and his face back together with fucking Flex Tape™. itd be about as legitimate if i went to the fucking Galleria dell'Accademia in florence, annihilated michelangelo's david with a sledgehammer and stitched the broken pieces back together with a fucking elmer's glue stick
 
History was written by the winners and whoever was lucky enough to survive. Be happy that these people were remembered for what they did.
 
Slavery was normal and accepted way of doing things for many thousands of years. Projecting modern morality on the past is asinine, especially projecting it on to the time period where it was actually, in any effective way, being banned.

Its like you have no clue as to what history is.
Slavery was a major moral issue in the 19th century west, it wasn't as normal and accepted as it had been before. The British had already banned it and shut down the atlantic slave trade, and countries like France and Spain (and their ex-colonies) who once had huge numbers of slaves had either totally abolished or almost abandoned it. By 1860 the only major holdouts in the west were America and Brazil.

You don't have to project modern morality backwards to find slavery abhorrent, many people in the 1800s already did, and even many of those not calling for all-out abolition believed that the institution shouldn't spread (like Lincoln).
 
I like to keep my ancestors crusader spirit alive by destroying Muslim buildings and art. They enslaved many people and we shouldn't keep their monuments to their savage ways up.

Oh wait that culture is considered sacred and hands off while another culture is considered fair game.
 
They should've done more to help the southern states after, but slavery is pretty fucked up and you are autistic as shit for trying to defend that

That's not a defense, he's stating facts from history. Facts don't equal a defense. They're facts, period.

All this erasure of the Confederacy is another elitist tactic. They believe the south is full of a bunch of dumb, racist, hick southerners who need to have their history erased, never mind that southern abolitionists existed, not everyone in the south owned slaves, and that there are myriad of FACTUAL reasons for the civil war other than abolishing slavery.

People need to get their dumb asses educated and stop this madness.

Also, we all know how (((Cohen))) would react if anyone mentioned getting rid of Holocaust history.
 
Slavery was a major moral issue in the 19th century west, it wasn't as normal and accepted as it had been before. The British had already banned it and shut down the atlantic slave trade, and countries like France and Spain (and their ex-colonies) who once had huge numbers of slaves had either totally abolished or almost abandoned it. By 1860 the only major holdouts in the west were America and Brazil.

You don't have to project modern morality backwards to find slavery abhorrent, many people in the 1800s already did, and even many of those not calling for all-out abolition believed that the institution shouldn't spread (like Lincoln).
Britain only sort of banned it. It was still legal in the Raj, though it was technically abolished there in the 1860s but wasn't really, and kept going with a nod and a wink at least through when the British left.

France did ban it in the 1790s for a few years, but Napoleon brought it back and it stayed legal until the 1840s.

It was banned in many US states in 1804, but the federal government had literally no say in the matter until the Constitution was amended. The US's first two foreign wars were against slavers.

What was actually happening wasn't as clear cut as you claim.
 
Well, social justice warriors want to destroy statues of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and other founding fathers as well because they were slaveholders, so maybe this isn't just about the confederate statues.
 
Well, social justice warriors want to destroy statues of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and other founding fathers as well because they were slaveholders, so maybe this isn't just about the confederate statues.
And Lincoln too.

Anyone who says "we're only removing statues of losers like Confederates" is a fucking liar.
 
In this very specific context, it could be argued that it isnt since this does concern a rebel faction against what would become a more commonplace America that we would recognize...

The statues represent that even "villains" of history were flesh and blood people at one point. Ones that led others of flesh and blood. Just like you and me. Looking at these individuals as well, individuals other than blanket terms adds this wonderful thing called CONTEXT. It's how one can look at the past and reflect on how it resembles or differs from you and yours today and how exactly these ideas, now considered primitive, were abolished step by step and those individuals who were involved. Its putting a face to history so you can feel it looking back at you.

Context and a knowledge of history is how you combat strawmanning anarchistic idealogues by removing their own security blanket. The far left hates to be reminded of the USSR and Cuba because you can point to them and ask: What makes you so different? Why do you think commies hate history so much?
 
In this very specific context, it could be argued that it isnt since this does concern a rebel faction against what would become a more commonplace America that we would recognize...

The statues represent that even "villains" of history were flesh and blood people at one point. Ones that led others of flesh and blood. Just like you and me. Looking at these individuals as well, individuals other than blanket terms adds this wonderful thing called CONTEXT. It's how one can look at the past and reflect on how it resembles or differs from you and yours today and how exactly these ideas, now considered primitive, were abolished step by step and those individuals who were involved. Its putting a face to history so you can feel it looking back at you.

Context and a knowledge of history is how you combat strawmanning anarchistic idealogues by removing their own security blanket. The far left hates to be reminded of the USSR and Cuba because you can point to them and ask: What makes you so different? Why do you think commies hate history so much?
To be generous:
Communism is a utopian ideology. There is a perfect future ahead of us, and an imperfect past behind. They feel that leaving remnants of said past is at best a temptation to return, and at worst a memorial to evil.

No different than Muslins who blow up pagan temples.
 
I wouldn't be sorry to see the statues of Lee and Davis come down but I'm opposed to it because I know they'd be coming for the Founding Fathers and Lafayette next.
 
Keeping the statues in public is not patriotic in and of itself. But destroying them is short sighted, and frankly animalistic. It's what ISIS did to priceless ancient artifacts. The people tearing them down don't understand they just destroyed a piece of history. If they really don't want it publicly displayed, why not go through the proper channels to have it moved to a museum,like any other public art installation? I guarantee there are several Confederate/Civil War museums in the South that would gladly take it.

I don't even support the Confederacy, and I wasn't born in the South, so I have little stake in this emotionally. It just sucks to know that humans in the future may never get to see these statues, because some retards with no knowledge of history decided to tear them down, break them, and throw paint over them.

If I'm wrong, and these statues are still salvageable, that's great. If humanity is still around 1000 years from now, they deserve to have access to things like that.
 
Frankly, I'm not sure if putting them in a museum would work given that rioters went out of their way to attack the Daughters of the Confederacy museum and managed to destroy several manuscripts and Stonewall Jackson's flag. What's to stop an angry mob from breaking through security to destroy the moved statues?

Oh, and there's the old slippery slope causing them to target other statues, sort of hard to take their "concerns" seriously.
 
The short answer is that it's not and it's never was.

The long answer: the Southern states were virtually a separate country, still, up until arguably the end of the Jim Crow era, and they just did what they wanted fuck the optics. What were those Yankees going to do, burn it all down again? We honor our ancestors by erecting statues of the assholes who sent them to war against their brothers in the first place.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo