Winning versus Annihilation

[Josh]

As far as I can see Ken, we are in agreement.

I wasn't arguing with you. I was expanding on your point.

We shouldn't forget any of our history. But not all of it merits honoring in public spaces. To respond to the original theme of this thread. Taking down public monuments to sinful and immoral wars that were erected to support white supremacy isn't "annihilation". It's finally doing the right thing.

The history of promoting confederate martial history in the south was to get more southern boys to enlist when bodies were needed in WWI and WWII, after the result that very few southerners would fight in the Spanish-American war. The federal government saw this as a problem and decided to change that.

Your “doing the right thing” analysis skips over the question of if WWI and WWII were the “right thing”; if the south had stayed disengaged it is doubtful America would have prevailed in those wars. Of course, I leave it as an exercise to the reader if America “winning” those wars is intrinsically a good thing.

[PetrChelcicky]

One short note aside.
Personally I look at the whole story as the most impressive case of a process I call "deconciliation" - a successful attempt to reverse a reconciliation which already had happened.
That "deconciliation" started in the Red Decade, and not so much about Blacks, but about the War of the North. This was the time when Lincoln was lionized (as the leader in a civil war, not about his half-hearted and inconsequential ideas about a reconciliation afterwards).
The most influential intellectual group in the Red Decade were the Trotskyites, and they promoted national and international civil wars as the natural way to a better world. (Mark that then the Stalinists were mostly shunned because they did NOT promote a big war but the development of Russia to a model country.) This is why so many intellectuals in the Red Decade fell for the War of the North as a blueprint for the kind of war they were longing for.
That idea of a "good war" hat its peak in the time of the Spanish Civil War with its huge number of idealistic "freedom fighters" from all over the West. Some leftist idealists like Orwell got sobered even then - most saved their idealism for WW2, but were sobered by the fact that Roosevelt made huge compromises to get the conservatives (above all the Christians) in his boat. This of course led to the after-war compromise which allowed Southerners to cultivate their memories of the Civil War, but at the same time to fight in the U.S. army - a compromise which only now has been revoked because we are living in the second Red Decade.

[Outsider]

Well... I'm still trying to wrap my head around how Robert E Lee was racist but Pres Lincoln wasn't...

One fought to preserve slavery. One fought to preserve the union, and eventually moved to free the slaves. Both were racist by today's standards, but I do think you need to judge people by the standards of their time.

One fought for the Union, the other fought for his State. Both were anti-slavery, but bowed to the legal process of governance. Virginia, and Texas, btw, had clauses in the treaties admitting them to the union which allowed them to secede if they felt a need. All the War of Northern Agression proved was that the US government has always been willing to break treaties with it's own people, not just with people viewed as outsiders.

https://historyofyesterday.com/the-firs ... d72930afa1

[barnhart]

Outsider, in what way was General Lee anti-slavery.

[temporal1]

The U.S. Civil War is certainly interesting in its own right. A new topic?

In response to the OP and subject line, so far, Dr Alveda King’s response continues to resonate:

Page 5:

Some thoughts.
First,
reconciliation is necessary, absolutely. The reconciliation between the North and the South was a good thing, not a bad.
Secondly,
reconciliation implies being honest about people's personal motives. If Bootstrap admits that Lincoln didn't intentionally fight against slavery, he ought to admit that Lee didnt intentionally fight for slavery.
Thirdly,
reconciliation often implies that even the winning side admits that the losing side had a real problem.
In American reconciliation, the North admitted that the South had a real Negro problem.
In American-German reconciliation the U.S.admitted that Germany had a real problem with Communism.
Fourth:
Reconciliation implies that the losers are allowed to cultivate a loving memory to their dead ones. This must not inevitably lead to statues on public places. But the memory is not an affair of cold or inimical historians or museologists. It is an affair of the loving;
the right place of such statues would be in spaces belonging to the Friends or Daughters of the Confederacy.

At last:
Germany. Most people have forgotten how much Americans did to reconciliate with the Germans.
There were a lot of American generals who pleaded in favor of the German generals and in fact helped to set them free after only few years. Also, these German generals were well-respected afterwards, by their countrymen as well as by their American opponents.

All this was not so different from the reconciliation between North and South in the USA.

Only later on has the interior development in Germany led to what I call the Pharisean approach to politics:
The Pharisee wants to be "completely different" from others (here: from the past) and he must show this by banning every symbol which would connect him with the past.

(This is, of course, the same approach which the Bolshevists used in Russia w.r.t. Tsarism.)

But as we all are humans, we can never be "completely different" from other humans,
and the more the Pharisee (unconciously) realizes this, the more he must retreat to a perfect suppression of the symbols.

This is a treat to read, thank you. You are getting at the heart of what i’m not so able to articulate.
i appreciate your tone. A voice of studied reason in a world of emotion and rancor.

i suggest one small word exchange:

Fourth:
Reconciliation implies that the losers are allowed to cultivate a loving memory to their dead ones. This must [may] not inevitably lead to statues on public places. But the memory is not an affair of cold or inimical historians or museologists. It is an affair of the loving; the right place of such statues would be in spaces belonging to the Friends or Daughters of the Confederacy.

i suggest “may not,” because, in keeping with the spirit of your overall post, any change should be discussed and agreed by all parties. to my knowledge, no such attempt was ever made. it’s been wholesale aggression without intent of mutual understanding/agreement, actually war-like, and proudly so. further, altho some suggest transfer of statues to museums, predictably, the next step is to abolish such museums or spaces in museums. (not a way to “make friends and influence people,” so to speak.)

Dr Alveda King has a level-headed response with helpful suggestions regarding statues:

”Alveda King tells protesters: 'If you find yourself going into a rage over a statue, step back’ “
https://www.foxnews.com/media/alveda-ki ... tatue-rage

Winning versus Annihilation .. switching gears .. Ukraine
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=4584

This thread has been mostly about internal U.S. conflicts/problems.

Feb 24 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine. Given recent decades, not all agree this was mysteriously unprovoked.

The Left-West seems intent on annihilating Putin, if not the Russian Federation. The squeeze is merciless.

The country, commonly known as Russia, is located partly in eastern Europe and partly in northern Asia, bordering the Arctic Ocean in the north.

Russian Federation is the new name of the country of what is left of the Soviet Union, after the breakaway of some of its republics.

“Russia Is Not the Soviet Union”
“The bottom line is that Russia is a conventional, somewhat conservative, power,
whereas the Soviet Union was a messianic, totalitarian power.”
https://www.cato.org/commentary/russia-not-soviet-union

Jesus the Christ goes beyond “not hating,” “tolerating.” Christians are to love enemies. A Big Step beyond. A really hard step.
Can Jesus be trusted??

Jesus has some terrifying expectations.

[Outsider]

Outsider, in what way was General Lee anti-slavery.

https://libquotes.com/robert-e-lee/quotes/slavery

https://www.theoleseagull.com/general/a ... as-debate/

[Ken]

Outsider, in what way was General Lee anti-slavery.

https://libquotes.com/robert-e-lee/quotes/slavery

https://www.theoleseagull.com/general/a ... as-debate/

Robert E Lee is probably responsible personally for more deaths in defense and expansion of slavery than any other figure in all of history other than Julius Caesar. Certainly in all of modern history. And the Confederacy was not simply defending slavery. They were fighting to expand it with the dream of a slave empire extending through Mexico into Central America and the Caribbean.

Also, according to historians, Lee's Army of Northern Virginia when it entered Maryland and Pennsylvania conducted systematic slave raids to capture free black citizens and transport them south into slavery. Hundreds if not thousands of free black citizens of those states were captured and sold into slavery by Lee's army. In other words, he led an army that was actively engaged the expansion of slavery.

It is nice that he apparently had a change of heart after the war concluded. But as for what he really believed? I would point out that all of Lee's personal records and correspondence are still being held as confidential and private by Lee's descendants. In contrast to the personal papers and documents of just about any other historical figure. What horrors and warts are they still trying to cover up 160 years later?

The notion that he, alone, was acting as a paragon of virtue is the delusion of every traitor.

[Outsider]

I wouldn’t ever Claim he was a paragon of virtue. Just not any more evil and ignorant than most men of his time.

I just think the war on history is pointless virtue-signaling.

[Ken]

I wouldn’t ever Claim he was a paragon of virtue. Just not any more evil and ignorant than most men of his time.

I just think the war on history is pointless virtue-signaling.

Who is declaring war on history?

I would argue that understanding and studying actual history is valuable. Glorifying false narratives and mythologies such as the "lost cause" is not.

[temporal1]

I wouldn’t ever Claim he was a paragon of virtue. Just not any more evil and ignorant than most men of his time.
I just think the war on history is pointless virtue-signaling.

i consider this foray into the U.S. Civil War off-topic, but, to add to it ..

i viewed this informal reaction video, kinda related .. it’s lengthy, and, unfortunately “Jenny” calls in, is difficult to understand and a distraction, but, i’m impressed with TY SMITH’s patience with her .. the point is, TY SMITH, is trying to understand slavery from a broader world view, to attempt context (which is difficult in navel-gazing U.S.)

He has one interesting caller from the West coast of Africa .. great English, strong accent.

i don’t blame anyone for not having the patience to slog thru this video. i found it overall worthwhile.
TY SMITH is a Christian, i presume not Anabaptist.

“Was America founded on racism? Is American history taught w/ truth? Were the founding fathers racist” / 1hr 36mn


Thomas Sowell has some (more formal, more academic) views that are similar.
Larry Elder has interesting insights.

i think many are disappointed in the narrowness of U.S. education. and, narrow specifically for partisan politics.
gov ed has never cost more. yet. results are lackluster.

i’m encouraged graduates are getting out and searching for more. this is priceless.