Erasing the Confederacy -How Far Would you Go?

[vanguard96]

For those who would go so far as preventing people from having a Confederate flag on their own property or some other extent like that beyond public grounds?

1. How would you enforce it?
2. Would you also enforce it for people wearing t-shirts or having stickers or license plates (on the front of cars in states where only the rear of the car needs a state license plate for instance)?
3. Would you want to institute a similar Nazi symbol ban for the internet like in Germany?
4. Would you still enforce the Confederate bans if the ban also included the Soviet Union / Hammer & Sickle / Lenin / Marx / Stalin? Or do you make an exception for them?

[Figueira]

Huh, I didn't vote for the removing monuments option. I now support that of course, provided they're moved to a museum or something rather than destroyed.

[Dr. MB]

Allow display but leave it up to the local governments to remove or keep up monuments on public grounds. Get rid of the holidays as official holidays.

[tallguy23]

1, 4, and 5.

I'd be ok with moving Confederate monuments to museums but I don't think most people care. I don't agree with erasing our history, no matter how awful it might be.

[JonHawk]

None of the above

[Mr. Reactionary]

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

That ANYONE needs to be told much less forced by law to stop celebrating a bunch of rich elitists who, in order to protect their own ability to get rich by horrifically abusing other human beings, eagerly started a war that killed millions of their fellows is a sad condemnation of America.

[Person Man]

Every one of these options that depends on my tax money are all reasonable options.

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

None of the above. It's a slippery slope. That has consistently been proven. After the confederate flags came down on public property, they went after confederate statues, then statues of anyone who owned slaves, then anyone who happened to be racist (aka anyone who lived before the 1970s). Just wait until they find out that Lincoln wanted to send freed blacks to Central America and the Carribean. It won't stop until history is completely rewritten or destroyed.

At the same time, DC is putting up a statue to Marion Barry, the former mayor convicted of using cocaine who once said “We’ve got to do something about these Asians coming in, opening up businesses, those dirty shops. They ought to go. I’ll just say that right now, you know. But we need African American business people to be able to take their places, too.” Seems the "anti-racists" are just anti-white, or they'd protest this instead of long dead founding fathers.

[wxtransit]

None of the above. It's a slippery slope. That has consistently been proven. After the confederate flags came down on public property, they went after confederate statues, then statues of anyone who owned slaves, then anyone who happened to be racist (aka anyone who lived before the 1970s). Just wait until they find out that Lincoln wanted to send freed blacks to Central America and the Carribean. It won't stop until history is completely rewritten or destroyed.

At the same time, DC is putting up a statue to Marion Barry, the former mayor convicted of using cocaine who once said “We’ve got to do something about these Asians coming in, opening up businesses, those dirty shops. They ought to go. I’ll just say that right now, you know. But we need African American business people to be able to take their places, too.” Seems the "anti-racists" are just anti-white, or they'd protest this instead of long dead founding fathers.

I, in no way, support racism or the KKK. I know full well that one of the central reasons that the Confederacy was created was for slave-owning enterprises to be able to continue operating. But removing this history is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it." And first it will be the monuments, but then history itself will start to be wiped from the history books.

This poses an interesting argument - if we remove all the history, people cannot learn from it. Therefore, they cannot learn the horrors of extreme racism. So, by removing history, people will not know how dangerous racism can become, and become numb to it. They won't know when to stop the spread of racism before it gets to a dangerous level. By removing monuments, you only eventually increase the likelihood of the Confederacy and the KKK rising again. So it would only benefit the cause of those who want to put a stop to racism to leave the monuments in place - to have a stark reminder of our past and where we should never go again.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I mean, even if you believe the removing statues has gone to far or whatever, there's no need to bring up such a self-evidently cretinous argument as "we can't learn from history because you are removing it"! What exactly the public can learn from memorials put up by a revisionist cult nearly a century after the Civil War that they couldn't from books, museums, documentaries, popular films or, err, statues commemorating the anti-slavery movement is beyond me.

[wxtransit]

I mean, even if you believe the removing statues has gone to far or whatever, there's no need to bring up such a self-evidently cretinous argument as "we can't learn from history because you are removing it"! What exactly the public can learn from memorials put up by a revisionist cult nearly a century after the Civil War that they couldn't from books, museums, documentaries, popular films or, err, statues commemorating the anti-slavery movement is beyond me.

From what I understand, at least, it isn't just monuments, but also history books and museums.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

In that case you're tilting at windmills - literally nobody wants to remove Civil War exhibits from museums.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

1 and 5

Yep, the other options go too far for me.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

1 and 5

Yep, the other options go too far for me.

I agree with 1 and 5 for the same reason.

[CookieDamage]

Everything but prohibiting the flying of the flag at private residencies.

[Kingpoleon]

I mean, even if you believe the removing statues has gone to far or whatever, there's no need to bring up such a self-evidently cretinous argument as "we can't learn from history because you are removing it"! What exactly the public can learn from memorials put up by a revisionist cult nearly a century after the Civil War that they couldn't from books, museums, documentaries, popular films or, err, statues commemorating the anti-slavery movement is beyond me.

From what I understand, at least, it isn't just monuments, but also history books and museums.

... They aren’t re-writing history books or destroying them.

[Cold War Liberal]

None of the above. It's a slippery slope. That has consistently been proven. After the confederate flags came down on public property, they went after confederate statues, then statues of anyone who owned slaves, then anyone who happened to be racist (aka anyone who lived before the 1970s). Just wait until they find out that Lincoln wanted to send freed blacks to Central America and the Carribean. It won't stop until history is completely rewritten or destroyed.

At the same time, DC is putting up a statue to Marion Barry, the former mayor convicted of using cocaine who once said “We’ve got to do something about these Asians coming in, opening up businesses, those dirty shops. They ought to go. I’ll just say that right now, you know. But we need African American business people to be able to take their places, too.” Seems the "anti-racists" are just anti-white, or they'd protest this instead of long dead founding fathers.

I, in no way, support racism or the KKK. I know full well that one of the central reasons that the Confederacy was created was for slave-owning enterprises to be able to continue operating. But removing this history is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it." And first it will be the monuments, but then history itself will start to be wiped from the history books.

This poses an interesting argument - if we remove all the history, people cannot learn from it. Therefore, they cannot learn the horrors of extreme racism. So, by removing history, people will not know how dangerous racism can become, and become numb to it. They won't know when to stop the spread of racism before it gets to a dangerous level. By removing monuments, you only eventually increase the likelihood of the Confederacy and the KKK rising again. So it would only benefit the cause of those who want to put a stop to racism to leave the monuments in place - to have a stark reminder of our past and where we should never go again.

mon·u·ment
ˈmänyəmənt
noun
a statue, building, or other structure erected to commemorate a famous or notable person or event.
synonyms: memorial, statue, pillar, column, obelisk, cross; cenotaph, tomb, mausoleum, shrine
"a stone monument"

com·mem·o·rate
kəˈmeməˌrāt/
verb
recall and show respect for (someone or something).
"a wreath-laying ceremony to commemorate the war dead"
celebrate (an event, a person, or a situation) by doing or building something.
"it was a night commemorated in a song"
synonyms: celebrate, pay tribute to, pay homage to, honor, salute, toast; remember, recognize, acknowledge, observe, mark

No one of any seriousness is suggesting we erase the confederacy from history books. That's stupid. We should get rid of all the monuments, or move them to a museum. Monuments are endorsements of the actions of those they are commemorating. It is not a "slippery slope" (that's a logical fallacy) because we don't want to erase the confederacy, we just don't want to glorify people who thought it was OK to own human beings, and started a war to defend their right to do so.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I mean, even if you believe the removing statues has gone to far or whatever, there's no need to bring up such a self-evidently cretinous argument as "we can't learn from history because you are removing it"! What exactly the public can learn from memorials put up by a revisionist cult nearly a century after the Civil War that they couldn't from books, museums, documentaries, popular films or, err, statues commemorating the anti-slavery movement is beyond me.

From what I understand, at least, it isn't just monuments, but also history books and museums.

... They aren’t re-writing history books or destroying them.

Actually, maybe 5 years ago or so they did recall all of the new 4th grade va history books used in public schools and reissued the same books with like 3 pages worth of edits because the 1st edition wasnt biased in favor of the north as much as they wanted. I have copies of both versions and all of the changes were in the civil war section, and included such changes as removing a Lee quote contemporaneous to the War about State's rights being a motivating factor. They also deleted a mention of the few blacks who fought for the south. Considering how new the 1st editions were, the only reason to undertake the expense and effort of recalling and reprinting a new edition just to make the minor changes they did make, is politics. Im not saying its a full memory hole strategy but to say there aren't forces at work to reframe the whole narrative as some black and white issue (no pun intended) is untrue. I mean hell, at UVA they literally removed a general list of names of UVA students who died in the war. It was pure historical fact and yet they took it down anyway.

[wxtransit]

None of the above. It's a slippery slope. That has consistently been proven. After the confederate flags came down on public property, they went after confederate statues, then statues of anyone who owned slaves, then anyone who happened to be racist (aka anyone who lived before the 1970s). Just wait until they find out that Lincoln wanted to send freed blacks to Central America and the Carribean. It won't stop until history is completely rewritten or destroyed.

At the same time, DC is putting up a statue to Marion Barry, the former mayor convicted of using cocaine who once said “We’ve got to do something about these Asians coming in, opening up businesses, those dirty shops. They ought to go. I’ll just say that right now, you know. But we need African American business people to be able to take their places, too.” Seems the "anti-racists" are just anti-white, or they'd protest this instead of long dead founding fathers.

I, in no way, support racism or the KKK. I know full well that one of the central reasons that the Confederacy was created was for slave-owning enterprises to be able to continue operating. But removing this history is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it." And first it will be the monuments, but then history itself will start to be wiped from the history books.

This poses an interesting argument - if we remove all the history, people cannot learn from it. Therefore, they cannot learn the horrors of extreme racism. So, by removing history, people will not know how dangerous racism can become, and become numb to it. They won't know when to stop the spread of racism before it gets to a dangerous level. By removing monuments, you only eventually increase the likelihood of the Confederacy and the KKK rising again. So it would only benefit the cause of those who want to put a stop to racism to leave the monuments in place - to have a stark reminder of our past and where we should never go again.

mon·u·ment
ˈmänyəmənt
noun
a statue, building, or other structure erected to commemorate a famous or notable person or event.
synonyms: memorial, statue, pillar, column, obelisk, cross; cenotaph, tomb, mausoleum, shrine
"a stone monument"

com·mem·o·rate
kəˈmeməˌrāt/
verb
recall and show respect for (someone or something).
"a wreath-laying ceremony to commemorate the war dead"
celebrate (an event, a person, or a situation) by doing or building something.
"it was a night commemorated in a song"
synonyms: celebrate, pay tribute to, pay homage to, honor, salute, toast; remember, recognize, acknowledge, observe, mark

No one of any seriousness is suggesting we erase the confederacy from history books. That's stupid. We should get rid of all the monuments, or move them to a museum. Monuments are endorsements of the actions of those they are commemorating. It is not a "slippery slope" (that's a logical fallacy) because we don't want to erase the confederacy, we just don't want to glorify people who thought it was OK to own human beings, and started a war to defend their right to do so.

So, you try to invalidate my argument by connecting definitions of two related words? That seems like a bit of a stretch. I never once said that these monuments should be kept to glorify these horrible people, in fact, these monuments should be reserved as a warning. I'm fine if the monuments are just moved to a museum, but that's not what, in many cases, has happened. Here was a nice article that explained a bit of my view: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/20/arts/design/we-need-to-move-not-destroy-confederate-monuments.html. Oddly enough, the page now ends in a 404 link. Hmm.

And yes, people of seriousness are suggesting that sections of history books be removed. And yes, it's happening. To say it's not is denial. Here's an example: http://www.dailytexanonline.com/2017/06/18/texas-textbooks-dangerously-misrepresent-causes-of-civil-war. I have more anecdotal evidence, but the problem is, it's anecdotal.

And if you are so hung up on the fact that they are called Confederate "monuments", then I suggest a new name: Confederate "statues" or Confederate "reminders".

[Cold War Liberal]

None of the above. It's a slippery slope. That has consistently been proven. After the confederate flags came down on public property, they went after confederate statues, then statues of anyone who owned slaves, then anyone who happened to be racist (aka anyone who lived before the 1970s). Just wait until they find out that Lincoln wanted to send freed blacks to Central America and the Carribean. It won't stop until history is completely rewritten or destroyed.

At the same time, DC is putting up a statue to Marion Barry, the former mayor convicted of using cocaine who once said “We’ve got to do something about these Asians coming in, opening up businesses, those dirty shops. They ought to go. I’ll just say that right now, you know. But we need African American business people to be able to take their places, too.” Seems the "anti-racists" are just anti-white, or they'd protest this instead of long dead founding fathers.

I, in no way, support racism or the KKK. I know full well that one of the central reasons that the Confederacy was created was for slave-owning enterprises to be able to continue operating. But removing this history is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it." And first it will be the monuments, but then history itself will start to be wiped from the history books.

This poses an interesting argument - if we remove all the history, people cannot learn from it. Therefore, they cannot learn the horrors of extreme racism. So, by removing history, people will not know how dangerous racism can become, and become numb to it. They won't know when to stop the spread of racism before it gets to a dangerous level. By removing monuments, you only eventually increase the likelihood of the Confederacy and the KKK rising again. So it would only benefit the cause of those who want to put a stop to racism to leave the monuments in place - to have a stark reminder of our past and where we should never go again.

mon·u·ment
ˈmänyəmənt
noun
a statue, building, or other structure erected to commemorate a famous or notable person or event.
synonyms: memorial, statue, pillar, column, obelisk, cross; cenotaph, tomb, mausoleum, shrine
"a stone monument"

com·mem·o·rate
kəˈmeməˌrāt/
verb
recall and show respect for (someone or something).
"a wreath-laying ceremony to commemorate the war dead"
celebrate (an event, a person, or a situation) by doing or building something.
"it was a night commemorated in a song"
synonyms: celebrate, pay tribute to, pay homage to, honor, salute, toast; remember, recognize, acknowledge, observe, mark

No one of any seriousness is suggesting we erase the confederacy from history books. That's stupid. We should get rid of all the monuments, or move them to a museum. Monuments are endorsements of the actions of those they are commemorating. It is not a "slippery slope" (that's a logical fallacy) because we don't want to erase the confederacy, we just don't want to glorify people who thought it was OK to own human beings, and started a war to defend their right to do so.

So, you try to invalidate my argument by connecting definitions of two related words? That seems like a bit of a stretch. I never once said that these monuments should be kept to glorify these horrible people, in fact, these monuments should be reserved as a warning. I'm fine if the monuments are just moved to a museum, but that's not what, in many cases, has happened. Here was a nice article that explained a bit of my view: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/20/arts/design/we-need-to-move-not-destroy-confederate-monuments.html. Oddly enough, the page now ends in a 404 link. Hmm.

And yes, people of seriousness are suggesting that sections of history books be removed. And yes, it's happening. To say it's not is denial. Here's an example: http://www.dailytexanonline.com/2017/06/18/texas-textbooks-dangerously-misrepresent-causes-of-civil-war. I have more anecdotal evidence, but the problem is, it's anecdotal.

And if you are so hung up on the fact that they are called Confederate "monuments", then I suggest a new name: Confederate "statues" or Confederate "reminders".

The purpose of a monument is to glorify something or someone. I was pointing out that fact, even if you don't agree with it. That's why a lot of these statues say things like "our Confederate heroes" or the like. I agree that they should be moved to museums or perhaps graveyards. Context-giving placards might be appropriate too, depending on the statue. They have no place in public spaces like parks.

Read your own article. The textbooks dismissed slavery as the main cause of the war and promoted the "Lost Cause." That's rewriting history and being in denial. Slavery was objectively the reason for the Civil War (just read the Confederate constitution, a few of the state succeeding documents, or the Confederate VP's speeches) and the "Lost Cause" is a stupid idea used to defend against accusations of treason. Objectively false things should not be intentionally taught in public schools to young impressionable children; thus, it is good that the textbooks were rewritten to accurately portray what the Civil War was about. It's not "history being wiped from the textbooks," as you put it, it's correcting a biased textbook.

[wxtransit]

None of the above. It's a slippery slope. That has consistently been proven. After the confederate flags came down on public property, they went after confederate statues, then statues of anyone who owned slaves, then anyone who happened to be racist (aka anyone who lived before the 1970s). Just wait until they find out that Lincoln wanted to send freed blacks to Central America and the Carribean. It won't stop until history is completely rewritten or destroyed.

At the same time, DC is putting up a statue to Marion Barry, the former mayor convicted of using cocaine who once said “We’ve got to do something about these Asians coming in, opening up businesses, those dirty shops. They ought to go. I’ll just say that right now, you know. But we need African American business people to be able to take their places, too.” Seems the "anti-racists" are just anti-white, or they'd protest this instead of long dead founding fathers.

I, in no way, support racism or the KKK. I know full well that one of the central reasons that the Confederacy was created was for slave-owning enterprises to be able to continue operating. But removing this history is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it." And first it will be the monuments, but then history itself will start to be wiped from the history books.

This poses an interesting argument - if we remove all the history, people cannot learn from it. Therefore, they cannot learn the horrors of extreme racism. So, by removing history, people will not know how dangerous racism can become, and become numb to it. They won't know when to stop the spread of racism before it gets to a dangerous level. By removing monuments, you only eventually increase the likelihood of the Confederacy and the KKK rising again. So it would only benefit the cause of those who want to put a stop to racism to leave the monuments in place - to have a stark reminder of our past and where we should never go again.

mon·u·ment
ˈmänyəmənt
noun
a statue, building, or other structure erected to commemorate a famous or notable person or event.
synonyms: memorial, statue, pillar, column, obelisk, cross; cenotaph, tomb, mausoleum, shrine
"a stone monument"

com·mem·o·rate
kəˈmeməˌrāt/
verb
recall and show respect for (someone or something).
"a wreath-laying ceremony to commemorate the war dead"
celebrate (an event, a person, or a situation) by doing or building something.
"it was a night commemorated in a song"
synonyms: celebrate, pay tribute to, pay homage to, honor, salute, toast; remember, recognize, acknowledge, observe, mark

No one of any seriousness is suggesting we erase the confederacy from history books. That's stupid. We should get rid of all the monuments, or move them to a museum. Monuments are endorsements of the actions of those they are commemorating. It is not a "slippery slope" (that's a logical fallacy) because we don't want to erase the confederacy, we just don't want to glorify people who thought it was OK to own human beings, and started a war to defend their right to do so.

So, you try to invalidate my argument by connecting definitions of two related words? That seems like a bit of a stretch. I never once said that these monuments should be kept to glorify these horrible people, in fact, these monuments should be reserved as a warning. I'm fine if the monuments are just moved to a museum, but that's not what, in many cases, has happened. Here was a nice article that explained a bit of my view: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/20/arts/design/we-need-to-move-not-destroy-confederate-monuments.html. Oddly enough, the page now ends in a 404 link. Hmm.

And yes, people of seriousness are suggesting that sections of history books be removed. And yes, it's happening. To say it's not is denial. Here's an example: http://www.dailytexanonline.com/2017/06/18/texas-textbooks-dangerously-misrepresent-causes-of-civil-war. I have more anecdotal evidence, but the problem is, it's anecdotal.

And if you are so hung up on the fact that they are called Confederate "monuments", then I suggest a new name: Confederate "statues" or Confederate "reminders".

The purpose of a monument is to glorify something or someone. I was pointing out that fact, even if you don't agree with it. That's why a lot of these statues say things like "our Confederate heroes" or the like. I agree that they should be moved to museums or perhaps graveyards. Context-giving placards might be appropriate too, depending on the statue. They have no place in public spaces like parks.

Read your own article. The textbooks dismissed slavery as the main cause of the war and promoted the "Lost Cause." That's rewriting history and being in denial. Slavery was objectively the reason for the Civil War (just read the Confederate constitution, a few of the state succeeding documents, or the Confederate VP's speeches) and the "Lost Cause" is a stupid idea used to defend against accusations of treason. Objectively false things should not be intentionally taught in public schools to young impressionable children; thus, it is good that the textbooks were rewritten to accurately portray what the Civil War was about. It's not "history being wiped from the textbooks," as you put it, it's correcting a biased textbook.

Correct. I'm not sure if you understand my argument, but I agree and have been agreeing with you here. Just because I'm a conservative does not mean I support the extremist "Lost Cause". In fact, I oppose it. I was just providing this as an example of a biased textbook. Confederate textbooks are being rewritten, in favor of both sides. This is the problem I'm trying to expose.

I have "read my own article", as you say, and I had chosen it with care. Officials from the Texas Educators' Association were rewriting the history in favor of the "Lost Cause". History was (and is) being wiped from the textbooks, and in this case, it was the Northern perspective.

The problem I have here is that you incorrectly assumed that I support these extremist ideals and then go on to explain to me why they're wrong. I know full well that they're wrong. I did not just choose the article on a whim without reading or comprehending it.

[Cold War Liberal]

None of the above. It's a slippery slope. That has consistently been proven. After the confederate flags came down on public property, they went after confederate statues, then statues of anyone who owned slaves, then anyone who happened to be racist (aka anyone who lived before the 1970s). Just wait until they find out that Lincoln wanted to send freed blacks to Central America and the Carribean. It won't stop until history is completely rewritten or destroyed.

At the same time, DC is putting up a statue to Marion Barry, the former mayor convicted of using cocaine who once said “We’ve got to do something about these Asians coming in, opening up businesses, those dirty shops. They ought to go. I’ll just say that right now, you know. But we need African American business people to be able to take their places, too.” Seems the "anti-racists" are just anti-white, or they'd protest this instead of long dead founding fathers.

I, in no way, support racism or the KKK. I know full well that one of the central reasons that the Confederacy was created was for slave-owning enterprises to be able to continue operating. But removing this history is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it." And first it will be the monuments, but then history itself will start to be wiped from the history books.

This poses an interesting argument - if we remove all the history, people cannot learn from it. Therefore, they cannot learn the horrors of extreme racism. So, by removing history, people will not know how dangerous racism can become, and become numb to it. They won't know when to stop the spread of racism before it gets to a dangerous level. By removing monuments, you only eventually increase the likelihood of the Confederacy and the KKK rising again. So it would only benefit the cause of those who want to put a stop to racism to leave the monuments in place - to have a stark reminder of our past and where we should never go again.

mon·u·ment
ˈmänyəmənt
noun
a statue, building, or other structure erected to commemorate a famous or notable person or event.
synonyms: memorial, statue, pillar, column, obelisk, cross; cenotaph, tomb, mausoleum, shrine
"a stone monument"

com·mem·o·rate
kəˈmeməˌrāt/
verb
recall and show respect for (someone or something).
"a wreath-laying ceremony to commemorate the war dead"
celebrate (an event, a person, or a situation) by doing or building something.
"it was a night commemorated in a song"
synonyms: celebrate, pay tribute to, pay homage to, honor, salute, toast; remember, recognize, acknowledge, observe, mark

No one of any seriousness is suggesting we erase the confederacy from history books. That's stupid. We should get rid of all the monuments, or move them to a museum. Monuments are endorsements of the actions of those they are commemorating. It is not a "slippery slope" (that's a logical fallacy) because we don't want to erase the confederacy, we just don't want to glorify people who thought it was OK to own human beings, and started a war to defend their right to do so.

So, you try to invalidate my argument by connecting definitions of two related words? That seems like a bit of a stretch. I never once said that these monuments should be kept to glorify these horrible people, in fact, these monuments should be reserved as a warning. I'm fine if the monuments are just moved to a museum, but that's not what, in many cases, has happened. Here was a nice article that explained a bit of my view: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/20/arts/design/we-need-to-move-not-destroy-confederate-monuments.html. Oddly enough, the page now ends in a 404 link. Hmm.

And yes, people of seriousness are suggesting that sections of history books be removed. And yes, it's happening. To say it's not is denial. Here's an example: http://www.dailytexanonline.com/2017/06/18/texas-textbooks-dangerously-misrepresent-causes-of-civil-war. I have more anecdotal evidence, but the problem is, it's anecdotal.

And if you are so hung up on the fact that they are called Confederate "monuments", then I suggest a new name: Confederate "statues" or Confederate "reminders".

The purpose of a monument is to glorify something or someone. I was pointing out that fact, even if you don't agree with it. That's why a lot of these statues say things like "our Confederate heroes" or the like. I agree that they should be moved to museums or perhaps graveyards. Context-giving placards might be appropriate too, depending on the statue. They have no place in public spaces like parks.

Read your own article. The textbooks dismissed slavery as the main cause of the war and promoted the "Lost Cause." That's rewriting history and being in denial. Slavery was objectively the reason for the Civil War (just read the Confederate constitution, a few of the state succeeding documents, or the Confederate VP's speeches) and the "Lost Cause" is a stupid idea used to defend against accusations of treason. Objectively false things should not be intentionally taught in public schools to young impressionable children; thus, it is good that the textbooks were rewritten to accurately portray what the Civil War was about. It's not "history being wiped from the textbooks," as you put it, it's correcting a biased textbook.

Correct. I'm not sure if you understand my argument, but I agree and have been agreeing with you here. Just because I'm a conservative does not mean I support the extremist "Lost Cause". In fact, I oppose it. I was just providing this as an example of a biased textbook. Confederate textbooks are being rewritten, in favor of both sides. This is the problem I'm trying to expose.

I have "read my own article", as you say, and I had chosen it with care. Officials from the Texas Educators' Association were rewriting the history in favor of the "Lost Cause". History was (and is) being wiped from the textbooks, and in this case, it was the Northern perspective.

The problem I have here is that you incorrectly assumed that I support these extremist ideals and then go on to explain to me why they're wrong. I know full well that they're wrong. I did not just choose the article on a whim without reading or comprehending it.

OK, but a "confederate textbook" should not be a thing that exists. Rewriting them to show both sides (i.e. what is, in this case, the truth) is not a "problem." The fact that confederate textbooks exist is a problem and rewriting them to be less biased is the solution.

How is that historical rewrite from the link relevant, or related to monuments? I was attempting to point out that assuming monument takedowns will be followed by historical revisionism in textbooks is built upon a logical fallacy, and you kind of proved my point by providing evidence that historical revisionism happens regardless of the status of confederate monuments. So... thanks for helping prove my point?

I didn't assume you held those views, though you did come across as defending the textbooks that espoused them.

[Gage]

I wouldn't pick any of the things that restrict free speech. Though I would remove Holidays and Confederate History month, if anyone is interested in a comprehensive paper I wrote on the confederate flag with sourced information PM me and I'll send it to you.


It's nothing incredible, but it's more effort than most people would put in I'd like to think.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

THE FIRST FIVE.