(04-24-2017 11:44 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I don't think what you see happening here can be equated to the various Muslim groups that have destroyed irreplaceable historical and cultural artifacts. From the article, these artifacts are being preserved and then will be displayed at a later time at a different venue.

One monument in particular does look to be very offensive - the obelisk to honor the Crescent City White League

Quote:The first memorial to come down will be the Liberty Monument, an 1891 obelisk honoring the Crescent City White League.

Landrieu has called the Liberty Monument “the most offensive of the four” and said it was erected to “revere white supremacy.”

I looked up the term Crescent City White League and was directed to a Wikipedia link on White Leagues:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_League

Quote:The White League, also known as the White Man's League,[1] was an American white paramilitary organization started in 1874 to turn Republicans out of office and intimidate freedmen from voting and political organizing. Affiliated with the Democratic Party, its first chapter was formed in Grant Parish, Louisiana and neighboring parishes, made up of many of the Confederate veterans who had participated in the Colfax massacre in April 1873. Chapters were soon founded in New Orleans and other areas of the state.

The Red Shirts was a similar group that formed chapters in Mississippi and the Carolinas. Active during the later years of Reconstruction, these paramilitary groups were described as "the military arm of the Democratic Party."[2] Through violence and intimidation of blacks and allied whites, their members suppressed Republican voting and contributed to the Democrats' taking control of the Louisiana Legislature in 1876 (and to Democratic control in other southern states).[2]

After white Democrats regained control of the state legislature in 1876, members of the White Leagues were absorbed into the state militias and the National Guard.

Based on the write up alone, it seems like this particular monument is analogous to putting up a monument for the Hell's Angels to glorify their exploits. I fully get the outrage over dismantling monuments dedicated to the confederate soldiers and leaders who fought and gave their lives for defending their homes. You may not agree with the cause for the south, but in reality the majority of the southerners who fought were not doing it because they wanted to see rich landowners make more money off of slaves. The majority of these people were defending their states from union soldiers. I can understand their POV.

You forgot this part,

In 1974, the city government added a plaque at the foot of the monument; it acknowledged the history while officially distancing the City from the racist philosophy of previous generations.[9]

Historic monuments are sometimes significant, the good or the seemingly bad.
Are they coming for Washington next?

(04-24-2017 11:46 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 11:44 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I don't think what you see happening here can be equated to the various Muslim groups that have destroyed irreplaceable historical and cultural artifacts. From the article, these artifacts are being preserved and then will be displayed at a later time at a different venue.

One monument in particular does look to be very offensive - the obelisk to honor the Crescent City White League

Quote:The first memorial to come down will be the Liberty Monument, an 1891 obelisk honoring the Crescent City White League.

Landrieu has called the Liberty Monument “the most offensive of the four” and said it was erected to “revere white supremacy.”

I looked up the term Crescent City White League and was directed to a Wikipedia link on White Leagues:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_League

Quote:The White League, also known as the White Man's League,[1] was an American white paramilitary organization started in 1874 to turn Republicans out of office and intimidate freedmen from voting and political organizing. Affiliated with the Democratic Party, its first chapter was formed in Grant Parish, Louisiana and neighboring parishes, made up of many of the Confederate veterans who had participated in the Colfax massacre in April 1873. Chapters were soon founded in New Orleans and other areas of the state.

The Red Shirts was a similar group that formed chapters in Mississippi and the Carolinas. Active during the later years of Reconstruction, these paramilitary groups were described as "the military arm of the Democratic Party."[2] Through violence and intimidation of blacks and allied whites, their members suppressed Republican voting and contributed to the Democrats' taking control of the Louisiana Legislature in 1876 (and to Democratic control in other southern states).[2]

After white Democrats regained control of the state legislature in 1876, members of the White Leagues were absorbed into the state militias and the National Guard.

Based on the write up alone, it seems like this particular monument is analogous to putting up a monument for the Hell's Angels to glorify their exploits. I fully get the outrage over dismantling monuments dedicated to the confederate soldiers and leaders who fought and gave their lives for defending their homes. You may not agree with the cause for the south, but in reality the majority of the southerners who fought were not doing it because they wanted to see rich landowners make more money off of slaves. The majority of these people were defending their states from union soldiers. I can understand their POV.

So this monument was put up by Democrats? Nvm, tear that **** up!

TBH, I think this line of thinking is inaccurate. The original GOP of Lincoln would be viewed as a bunch of progressive SJW's today. The political parties are nothing more than political "real estate". Our laws have more or less cemented these parities into our governmental structures. The politicians are nothing bet tenants who happen to be renting the parties they are members of at the moment. The latest version of the GOP has quite recently taken a populist turn that would have been quite popular in the Dem party of the 50s and 60s. The party of Lincoln was filled with SJW types who were fighting a specific cause of injustice. The dems of yesterday would have never stood for the free trade ideas of today as represented by the Clintons, etc. etc.

(04-24-2017 12:05 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 11:44 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I don't think what you see happening here can be equated to the various Muslim groups that have destroyed irreplaceable historical and cultural artifacts. From the article, these artifacts are being preserved and then will be displayed at a later time at a different venue.

One monument in particular does look to be very offensive - the obelisk to honor the Crescent City White League

Quote:The first memorial to come down will be the Liberty Monument, an 1891 obelisk honoring the Crescent City White League.

Landrieu has called the Liberty Monument “the most offensive of the four” and said it was erected to “revere white supremacy.”

I looked up the term Crescent City White League and was directed to a Wikipedia link on White Leagues:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_League

Quote:The White League, also known as the White Man's League,[1] was an American white paramilitary organization started in 1874 to turn Republicans out of office and intimidate freedmen from voting and political organizing. Affiliated with the Democratic Party, its first chapter was formed in Grant Parish, Louisiana and neighboring parishes, made up of many of the Confederate veterans who had participated in the Colfax massacre in April 1873. Chapters were soon founded in New Orleans and other areas of the state.

The Red Shirts was a similar group that formed chapters in Mississippi and the Carolinas. Active during the later years of Reconstruction, these paramilitary groups were described as "the military arm of the Democratic Party."[2] Through violence and intimidation of blacks and allied whites, their members suppressed Republican voting and contributed to the Democrats' taking control of the Louisiana Legislature in 1876 (and to Democratic control in other southern states).[2]

After white Democrats regained control of the state legislature in 1876, members of the White Leagues were absorbed into the state militias and the National Guard.

Based on the write up alone, it seems like this particular monument is analogous to putting up a monument for the Hell's Angels to glorify their exploits. I fully get the outrage over dismantling monuments dedicated to the confederate soldiers and leaders who fought and gave their lives for defending their homes. You may not agree with the cause for the south, but in reality the majority of the southerners who fought were not doing it because they wanted to see rich landowners make more money off of slaves. The majority of these people were defending their states from union soldiers. I can understand their POV.

You forgot this part,

In 1974, the city government added a plaque at the foot of the monument; it acknowledged the history while officially distancing the City from the racist philosophy of previous generations.[9]

Historic monuments are sometimes significant, the good or the seemingly bad.
Are they coming for Washington next?

No, because fair or unfair there is a difference between the sins made by the country vs the sins made by a rebellious faction of the country. People are going to assign historical relevance to various events to a hierarchy. I think preserving as much as possible is the right approach and I agree with your view. But I don't live there and it's not my call.

Historical markers should be given a level of protection so that they cannot be removed as the political winds blow.

A monument which has been there for 100+ years should be protected.

The only reason it isn't is because it represents an idea which has fallen out of favour.

It is nothing but cultural genocide.

(04-24-2017 11:07 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It's cultural genocide, again, simple as that.

Omigosh, did the Taliban cross our borders? Or do we have the new version of Mao's cultural revolution? This people are sick and anti-freedom.

I wonder how long before the people with common sense, i.e. conservatives get fed up with Libturd's antics. City and town administrations are doing this wheely deely without any input from people that had civil war ancestors.

They need to rise up and protest and maybe bloody some noses…just like the Libturds do.

(04-24-2017 12:18 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Historical markers should be given a level of protection so that they cannot be removed as the political winds blow.

A monument which has been there for 100+ years should be protected.

The only reason it isn't is because it represents an idea which has fallen out of favour.

It is nothing but cultural genocide.

Given enough time, anything and everything can be given "historical status". Something like this would have to be balanced with ideas that a number of these monuments are located in living breathing cities. Not all history is created equal and not all history will survive the test of time in the end. Is an obelisk commemorating a group of people who tried to overthrow a city gov't important enough to want to preserve? Is it something that isn't easily conveyed thru other artifacts that preserve the overall history? I don't have the answers to these, because the demographics of the city have changed greatly from then until now.

If you're truly worried about cultural genocide, your biggest threat to that - by far - is the connectivity we have thru the internet. Our cultural identities are naturally being eroded away organically and by our own choosing - at least for most of us. With just one example, you can see it just by looking at our diets today vs the diets our parents grew up with and previous generations in our families.

(04-24-2017 12:23 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 11:07 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It's cultural genocide, again, simple as that.

Omigosh, did the Taliban cross our borders? Or do we have the new version of Mao's cultural revolution? This people are sick and anti-freedom.

I wonder how long before the people with common sense, i.e. conservatives get fed up with Libturd's antics. City and town administrations are doing this wheely deely without any input from people that had civil war ancestors.

They need to rise up and protest and maybe bloody some noses…just like the Libturds do.

It's beginning. See the Battles of Berkeley.

That's right Kronke, and it's about time. So who cares what those people think of us. They'll never like us anyway, right?

People wanting to make this a binary political argument on this board like everything else.

I'm just no interested in that. The people of New Orleans have every right to decide what they want to do with their city and their public objects. There is no political dispute at all. They govern themselves.

I'm saddened by their choice. I think someday their descendants will regret what they've done.

(04-24-2017 12:23 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  They need to rise up and protest and maybe bloody some noses…just like the Libturds do.

It's coming ollie. I don't want it to come to that but I'm afraid there isn't going to be a choice much longer. One side doesn't want a dialogue and you're left with few options.

(04-24-2017 12:39 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  People wanting to make this a binary political argument on this board like everything else.

I'm just no interested in that. The people of New Orleans have every right to decide what they want to do with their city and their public objects. There is no political dispute at all. They govern themselves.

I'm saddened by their choice. I think someday their descendants will regret what they've done.

I agree 100%.

As a descendent of confederate soldiers and a southerner I always found these statues to be a peculiar anachronism.

History should be preserved but public monuments to our civil war, or any civil war for that matter always seemed odd to me.

The fact that this is an issue in 2017 is odder still.

I understand both sides of the debate but don't we as a people have bigger issues to confront.

(04-24-2017 12:49 PM)shere khan Wrote:  As a descendent of confederate soldiers and a southerner I always found these statues to be a peculiar anachronism.

History should be preserved but public monuments to our civil war, or any civil war for that matter always seemed odd to me.

The fact that this is an issue in 2017 is odder still.

I understand both sides of the debate but don't we as a people have bigger issues to confront.

I agree 200%

(04-24-2017 12:49 PM)shere khan Wrote:  As a descendent of confederate soldiers and a southerner I always found these statues to be a peculiar anachronism.

History should be preserved but public monuments to our civil war, or any civil war for that matter always seemed odd to me.

The fact that this is an issue in 2017 is odder still.

I understand both sides of the debate but don't we as a people have bigger issues to confront.

We reached an agreement in order to foster reunion.

The South would grudgingly accept that it was probably best that the Union was preserved and accept that it was good that slavery was gone.

The North basically agreed to accept that Southern soldiers retained their honor and fought bravely. They were accepted as "American soldiers" with tombstones provided and Confederate sections in national cemeteries and the President putting a wreath on the Confederate memorial at Arlington Cemetery every year.

They agreed to meet together at Reunions and shake hands. State's agreed to give each other back their battle flags. Forts and bases were named for both sides.

The Civil War became common property and it was okay for all of it to be "American". You could go to a park and buy either flag or a little kepi of either color to wear.

A really good compromise to heal the country.

It was never a problem until the Civil Rights era arrived and some Southerners started using historical Confederate symbols for modern political uses and other Southerners did not step up and cry foul.

(04-24-2017 12:52 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 12:49 PM)shere khan Wrote:  As a descendent of confederate soldiers and a southerner I always found these statues to be a peculiar anachronism.

History should be preserved but public monuments to our civil war, or any civil war for that matter always seemed odd to me.

The fact that this is an issue in 2017 is odder still.

I understand both sides of the debate but don't we as a people have bigger issues to confront.

I agree 200%

so you agree that the New Orleans probably has better ways to spend time and money.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(04-24-2017 01:02 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 12:52 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-24-2017 12:49 PM)shere khan Wrote:  As a descendent of confederate soldiers and a southerner I always found these statues to be a peculiar anachronism.

History should be preserved but public monuments to our civil war, or any civil war for that matter always seemed odd to me.

The fact that this is an issue in 2017 is odder still.

I understand both sides of the debate but don't we as a people have bigger issues to confront.

I agree 200%

so you agree that the New Orleans probably has better ways to spend time and money.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Yes sure. When they first put them up and now taking them down. Democracy put them up though, i reckon it can take them down.

Doesnt make it smart

(04-24-2017 12:18 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Historical markers should be given a level of protection so that they cannot be removed as the political winds blow.

A monument which has been there for 100+ years should be protected.

The only reason it isn't is because it represents an idea which has fallen out of favour.

It is nothing but cultural genocide.

I believe Virginia has a state law that does just that. I have a feeling some nitwit somewhere is trying to find a way around it though.

New Orleans is a forward looking city and perhaps did not want to be tied to a past that most AMericans abhor.

The City of Memphis did this a few years back and the state enacted a law to stop this from happening again. The law doesn't say you can never move a historical monument or item but you have to go through an approval process to do so.

https://trackbill.com/bill/tn-sb2138-his...4/1239100/

(04-24-2017 01:40 PM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  The City of Memphis did this a few years back and the state enacted a law to stop this from happening again. The law doesn't say you can never move a historical monument or item but you have to go through an approval process to do so.

https://trackbill.com/bill/tn-sb2138-his...4/1239100/

Mostly these things are removed by ignorant people. They moved Nathan Bedford Forrest's statue in Memphis because he founded the KKK, not knowing that he vigorously opposed them when they went overboard. They renamed Sidney Lanier MS in Houston because he was a Confederate soldier, not seeming to know that he was primarily known as a poet. They changed the name of Reagan HS because he was Postmaster General of the Confederacy, not seeming to know that he was a hero of the Texas Revolution and prominent Houston citizen for decades after the war.