(05-28-2019 03:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-28-2019 02:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So you're really telling me that I can't use the fact that a statue of Jefferson Davis was erected on the 50th anniversary of his inauguration to the presidency of the Confederacy to deduce that it was erected to celebrate the Confederacy?
You're telling me that we can't use context clues and evidence to evaluate anyone's motives?
You're telling me that analyzing these facts and drawing a conclusion is no longer critical thinking, but rather arrogance? So now we're arrogant if we hold opinions based on an analysis of an action?
You were projecting because in my response I never once tried to make a sweeping generalization about the motivation of all confederate memorials nor did I try and say what should have happened at that time. My response focused on what the statues stand for today, why they were placed in the first place, and if they have a place as a public memorial. Some do, some don't. I provided a clear example of one that doesn't belong. Do you think Davis' statue in New Orleans was wrongfully removed? If so, why?
Finally, I fail to see how the South's reaction to reconstruction changes whether or not some memorials should be taken down today and removed as public memorials. Many belong in museums as artifacts of history, not as present day memorials.

No, I'm telling you that your analysis sucks because you are cherry-picking your context clues. There are things that you are not considering. I think the Jeff Davis statue may have been put there for the reasons you suggest, or may have been meant as an "up yours" to the damn yankees. Most likely, it was probably some of both. I think that to conclude that it was solely there for one reason is the height of feigned omnipotence and arrogance. I'm not projecting it onto anything but your specific comments. As far as 1911 being the 50th anniversary, if you were going to put up a statue of Jeff Davis for any reason, when would you choose to put it up?

As for failing to understand the impact of the south's reaction to reconstruction, you didn't live in the south when that resentment was still alive and strong, so I doubt that you are really capable of comprehending the depth of resentment. Fortunately, in the last 50 years or so, the region's economic development has overcome a lot of that. Whatever racism remains, and there is some but not as much as I have seen in Boston, is more attributable to poor whites who see an educated African-American population as a direct economic threat (not acknowledging that in many cases it's their own laziness that is more of a problem). I see little or nothing that I would attribute to racism among the educated populations of all colors with whom I interact when there. I do see a fair amount of residual reconstruction resentment. Southerners will watch NASCAR rather than Indy cars (both are just a lot of left turns, although I find NASCAR more entertaining because they actually race alongside more because bumping is not fatal), and generally care more about SEC football than the NFL, to cite a couple of examples, although I saw a lot of the old sectional resentment in the reaction of Saints fans to the blown no-call in the NFL championship game. In the SEC football context, there are many knowledgable observers who will insist that the largest step toward racial harmony ever taken in the south was taken by Paul Bryant with a considerable assist from Sam "Bam" Cunningham on a night in Birmingham in September 1970. Based on what I have seen, I tend to agree.

As far as the substantive issue of the statues, I think we are in general agreement, although we get there by different routes.

There is a feeling in the south that the rest of the country, and the northeast in particular, is trying to screw the south. It has nothing to do with race, so far as I can tell, and in fact I have seen instances that it is shared by people of all races. So if I've answered your question, I'll ask you again, do you think the treatment of the south during reconstruction was appropriate?

Just a quick question - what do you think my analysis of the reason for the placement of the statue is? What reasons do I suggest (I'm interested at the plurality of that word).

In your diatribe, yet you seem to be pretty certain that my reasoning sucks, but frankly, I'm not sure if you know what I think the reasoning is given such a bombastic response to a rather benign reason.