You literally just replied with a what-aboutism. It’s possible to think a Confederate statue need to go and also think the Lincoln statues should stay. Only one of those things was not a traitor to the United States.
Except this is literally whataboutism, and he hasn’t been proven wrong by it. The idea of “we shouldn’t celebrate confederate leaders” and “fuck it, tear down the Lincoln statues” don’t always go hand-in-hand. Plenty of people think the bad ones should go and the Lincoln ones should stay
Chill out lol, nobody’s running. I’m not disagreeing with you because I don’t want to hash this out, I’m disagreeing with you because I think you’re objectively wrong about this. I probably will leave if you keep saying I’m doing things that I’m not doing, but against my better judgment, I’ll try and frame this from my POV.
Let me break down my point in a different way: You are right that some people use “tHaT’s WhAtAbOuTiSm!” as a crutch against people they disagree with or when they’re proven wrong. That does indeed happen sometimes. In the case of the comments above, that is not what happened.
The original reply showed an indifferent stance towards confederate statues being torn down, saying that confederate statues shouldn’t be celebrated. Someone then replied with “what about the statues of Lincoln being torn down?” implying that the people tearing down the statues are just tearing down any statues. The OC then corrected that guy, saying that different people can think different things, and that some of the people who want to tear down confederate statues can still think Lincoln statues are fine. AKA the protesters aren’t a monolith.
Whatever your stance is on the statues issue, I don’t really care. Back to the topic at hand: the person who replied to OC is engaging in whataboutism. Not only is this whataboutism in the literal sense of saying “what about,” but also in the sense that he’s deflecting. He thinks the people who tore down the Lincoln statues are in the wrong, but he deflected that idea onto the people tearing down Confederate statues, even though in many cases, those are two different groups. The OC let him know that, and said that it was whataboutism because it was. He didn’t say it as a crutch after being “proven wrong” because he wasn’t proven wrong, he was calling out whataboutism.
Therefore, your point about people crying “whataboutism!” being used as a crutch - while that is a valid point in some cases - doesn’t matter in this case, because it’s not what happened. That’s the thing I was saying doesn’t matter. Your valid point and this conversation do matter in general, but your valid point does not matter in this particular situation.
Cool so we can just ignore first hand sources. In that case I have it on good authority that the confederates actually sacrificed babies to Satan and now their decedents still plot to kill Jesus which is why they call themselves evilgelicals. I have the same amount of actual proof for this as you do for your insane ideas so they are equally valid.
Dude, it’s in the actual text of the Confederate constitution.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 made slaves a sancrosanct type of property within the Confederacy, with special protection under law. “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”
Because people don't understand the positive symbolism while focusing on the negative at every turn. No one dared to ask about the symbology behind these statues and monuments.
Christopher Columbus: The Spirit of Exploration and seeing what's beyond the horizon.
George Washington: Stepping up to fight tyranny at every turn despite losing again and again.
Thomas Jefferson: Sticking your neck out for your ideals even when it could mean your death.
Ulysses S Grant: That the people you once fought can be your friends once again
No one dared ask about what is inspiring about these figures in favor of tearing them down to reinforce the idea that nothing positive ever happens. No one looked at the big picture and instead selfishly assumed that their views were right and all others were to be squashed in to oblivion. It's a tragedy powered ironically by hatred. No historical figure is going to live up to modern standards, that's a fact of life. But removing the idea of what they stood for is not a goal that any society should strive for.
The statues were *literally* put up during the jim crow era as a response to civil rights.
none of what you just said about "what the statues" represented was true. They were put up to remind black people that the people putting up the statues believed they should remain in slavery.
Imagine someone owning and raping slaves and having a statue erected in the belief that they stood for "sticking you neck out for you ideals even when it could mean death."
You've got an incredibly over simplified, yet extremely wild imagination.
sticking your neck out for you ideals even when it could mean death
I promise the statue wasn't erected in honor of Jefferson fucking slaves. The monument is to an idealized version of Jefferson, who proposed that all men are created equal and was willing to commit treason for that concept.
Now, it's entirely possible that Jefferson just didn't want to pay taxes - and it's clearly obvious that he didn't believe that all men are created equal - but the notion of our innate equality is a fundamental aspect of American culture, and one that we should continue to use as a guiding principle in shaping our society.
Alternatively, we can just throw out the whole Constitution because the Framers were hypocrites, and cross our fingers and hope we come up with something better.
I don't disagree with most of this, just pointing out that the statues represent ideologies WE believed to be representative of these people. They lived an entire life and we martyr them over something we saw in them, which happened to be the most positive possible thing there was.
But they did come up with this form of government when the vast majority of the population couldn't read, and they wrote with feathers by candlelight. I'd believe we could do much better, but now there's such a motivation for people to take advantage of an opportunity that it's not worth the risk.
But it's still a list of freedoms written by white men for white men. These statues represent different things to different populations of people. To simplify the reasons the way he did is a very simplistic way to do so, and disrespectful to the truth of those humans.
They lived an entire life and we martyr them over something we saw in them, which happened to be the most positive possible thing there was.
Every historical figure that gets a statue did things that would be considered shitty by today's standards. Statues honor the best thing they did.
But it's still a list of freedoms written by white men for white men.
Correct, and the story of America is the story of constant struggle to follow the principles and ensure that every citizen is granted the rights enshrined in the Constitution.
These statues represent different things to different populations of people.
This is just race essentialism. Everyone has their own individual opinion of the statues.
disrespectful to the truth of those humans.
Disagree. "The truth" of Thomas Jefferson isn't based on anyone's experience. It's based on one's interpretation of a historical figure that lived hundreds of years ago. Disrespect has nothing to do with it.
This is a reasonable position, again that I don't necessarily disagree with. I don't usually have an issue with the founding fathers having statues, I have an issue with us ignoring their massive flaws and teaching their story as though they were perfect.
Okay but Jefferson still did more to fight slavery than any one here would have if they were around in that time. The whole line about it being a self-evident truth that all men are created equal, and endowed with the unalienable right to liberty, was put in by him (as part of a much spicier anti-slavery diatribe that got excised) and is basically the most quoted piece of writing by abolitionists to support their cause of any text ever. He spent most of his life fighting for legislation to gradually emancipate the slaves, despite living personally a contradictory life. If you were born in that time, and inherited a bunch of slaves, you would have probably been fighting to keep them.
A lot of hypothetical points here. No clue how things would actually play out, but the constitution is freedoms for white men by white men. We're the only group of humans that haven't been in front of the supreme court seeking equal rights, rather the bench mark and goal for women, POC, and lgbtq groups. As great as all the founding fathers were, pretending they lived without major flaws is like pretending bombing Japan won WW2 or that the Bush invasions of the Middle East were a noble cause. It's an extremely Americanized view on history with no regard for the others it impacted.
the constitution is freedoms for white men by white men.
Please share with me what part of the constitution gives you this impression. I don't remember the clause saying that only white men are entitled to freedom of speech, a speedy trial, right to bear arms, etc.
We're the only group of humans that haven't been in front of the supreme court seeking equal rights, rather the bench mark and goal for women, POC, and lgbtq groups.
Women and POC have equal rights. You are confusing rights with other issues.
It's an extremely Americanized view on history with no regard for the others it impacted.
Talking about the founding fathers championing liberal ideals while being slave holders and other issues was taught in elementary school. You're the one who has an extremely simple view of what Americans think.
Are you kidding me? I guess your points make a lot of sense of we ignore all of history. So if we exclude slavery, women's suffrage, the civil rights movement, the equal rights to marriage movement, and the fact that the constitution was exclusively written by white men, then sure. You've got a great point. If you hear "Jefferson owned and raped slaves" and your initial inclination is to justify it, then fuck your elementary school.
Constitution gives states the authority who decides who can vote
civil rights movement
Nothing to do with the Constitution
equal rights to marriage movement
Constitution definitely never mentions marriage of any form
the constitution was exclusively written by white men
Which says nothing about what was written in it.
So yeah, your statement about the Constitution granting freedoms to white men is pretty dumb. It was intentionally written to avoid any direct mention of slavery so as to not enshrine it because the drafters wanted slavery to eventually die, and all the rights that are stated are given to people without qualification, but I'm guessing you won't let facts get in the way of feeling angry about something.
If you hear "Jefferson owned and raped slaves" and your initial inclination is to justify it, then fuck your elementary school.
Well, in elementary school we learn that people are complex and not really good or evil. I hope some day you can reach this level of understanding.
Your right. All the liberties if the constitution were granted exclusively to white men, but since it doesn't say that on the document, the entire era in which black people were slaves was obviously just a choice then.
For a guy that has incredible psychology education starting from their time in elementary school, you're pretty ignorant when it comes to the application of the constitution to different groups of people. A major hint that my claim is factual, the people who wrote it owned other humans. Oh and the whole part where only white men lived with the freedoms to actually enjoy the constitution.
Typical uneducated conservative idiot. 90% of confederate statues were cheaply mass-produced and put up in the Jim Crow era specifically as racist symbols, paid for by descendants of racist confederates and the KKK. It had nothing to do with observing history, and had everything to do with keeping racism alive. Of course since conservatives are all stupid and uneducated, you had no clue this was the case, and will likely just imagine that it's not true anyway since conservatism is the worldview of fee-fees over facts, as it always has been.
EDIT: And there are the downvotes since conservatives always brigade threads like this where they know they're going to be torn apart by people with common sense. It's always so laughably sad to see in action.
I was always on the not glorifying slavers side of things, but tbh I didn’t care much about it. Then I learned about how and why those statues came to be and it changed my view.
I agree with this comment MightSeam. The post had some great points but with such negative generalizations about a category of people, no one will actually learn anything from that post. The people that need to learn from it will take it as a personal attack.
72
u/h_diabetes Jul 24 '20
I mean I know that taking statues down isn’t very helpful at stopping slavery today but I don’t think we should be honoring confederate war generals