Jump to content
RememberSchiff

Stonewall Jackson Area Council Changes Name

Recommended Posts

Somewhere along the way in my life, this point hit me:

3 hours ago, mds3d said:

How do you think African American scouts and parents felt about having a confederate general's name on their son's scout shirt?

Slavery and the many, many years of racism that followed it caused a great deal of hurt to a great many people in our country.  It is a scar on the soul of our country.  Enough people have said this kind of thing bothers them that In deference to the wishes of those who have suffered so much because of slavery and racism, I think that yes, we should not name councils in honor of Confederate generals.

10 minutes ago, mds3d said:

You still haven't given any reason that these people deserved to have monuments, parks, or buildings named after them in the first place.  We look past many of the negative things about the people you mentioned because of their positive legacy.  Lee and Jackson and Forrest didn't leave positive legacies.  They left a legacy of rebelling against their country in favor of defending the practice of slavery. 

It really depends on who erected the monuments, parks, or buildings.  If we think about it dispassionately, if your community was on the losing end of a war and your soldiers and leaders fought bravely on your behalf then remembering them is not out of line. 

However, as has already been mentioned today, a great many of the remembrances of the Civil War and the Confederacy were done in protest to and defiance of the civil rights movements.  Those works are shameful and should be removed.

This council got it's name in 1927 - so I've got no idea of the motivation for choosing the name.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These works are beautiful representations of public art that are a snap shot of a historical moment and help tell the history of the time they represent. It is shameful and ignorant that anyone should suggest their destruction, removal or denigration. This doesn't happen in many other countries, just the idiotic United States and Iran apparently. Historical monuments of different viewpoints and eras in history are deserving of preservation and protection. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, yknot said:

These works are beautiful representations of public art that are a snap shot of a historical moment and help tell the history of the time they represent. It is shameful and ignorant that anyone should suggest their destruction, removal or denigration. This doesn't happen in many other countries, just the idiotic United States and Iran apparently. Historical monuments of different viewpoints and eras in history are deserving of preservation and protection. 

Beauty is in the eye of The beholder.  I see nothing of value in a statue of a southern general.   A memorial to those who caught and died, ok.  But for a failed general who was a traitor to his nation and Fought for a cause that one human was worth less than another - no.   And regarding destruction of monuments, go to Germany and look at all the building and statues that the Nazis created.   While buildings remain, the emblems of the Nazis are gone.  And nothing is buried - the Germans make all students see the horrors that the Nazis performed and ensure they understand how it came to be.  Maybe that is what should have occurred during the reconstruction.  Then there would not have been the romantic fever of the southern crusade that bloomed in the 1920s.   

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, yknot said:

These works are beautiful representations of public art that are a snap shot of a historical moment and help tell the history of the time they represent. It is shameful and ignorant that anyone should suggest their destruction, removal or denigration. This doesn't happen in many other countries, just the idiotic United States and Iran apparently. Historical monuments of different viewpoints and eras in history are deserving of preservation and protection. 

I've seen many of them and I agree that they are well done, impressive works of art.

If the Civil War had ended and racism had ended then as well, I doubt we'd be discussing this.  But, racism didn't stop at the end of the civil war and it was still going on strongly for at least another hundred years.  As a result, these remembrances are intertwined with a very hateful, shameful period in our nation's history.  Further, people are recognizing the deep hurt this prolonged period has caused.  Out of respect to those our nation has caused so much hurt, there is a desire to remove such symbols.

So, I am in no way surprised that any statue, park, or monument commemorating anything about slavery, the confederacy, or racism is now being looked up by disdain and disgust by an ever growing number of people.  This is entirely a response to years and years of continued racism.

There is no moral equivalence with what happens in Iran.  By removing these works we are not attempting to hide history, but are simply saying that we no longer want to glorify that history. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, yknot said:

It is shameful and ignorant that anyone should suggest their destruction, removal or denigration. This doesn't happen in many other countries, just the idiotic United States and Iran apparently. 

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

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

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-21666091/syria-crisis-raqqa-crowds-topple-assad-statue

Perhaps you can find Nazi memorials in Germany...nope.  https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/germany-has-no-nazi-memorials/597937/


There are many, many, many more examples of former leader status being torn down.

I think it is probably the opposite.  USA was one of the few countries to honor traitors who tried to keep in place a system of slavery and murdered tens of thousands of people in their effort.  Lee was a great general but had a choice.  Lincoln wanted him to stay with the Union. He made his choice as did Jackson... we should not honor these people. Just as Iraq no long honors Saddam, Ukraine Lenin, Syria Assad, etc.

What you fight for matters.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2019 at 11:45 AM, JoeBob said:

It's hard to find a Founding Father who never owned a slave. 

Not really.... John Quincy Adams comes to mind readly, as well as a host of Founding Mothers....

Edited by le Voyageur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion. I'm just curious, though, where else have people built statues to generals that have lost? I'm not talking about rewriting history, just who wants to recognize the guy that lost? I'm not sure I've ever seen this anywhere other in the US. I've seen plenty of memorials to those that have died, and those are worthy for everyone to learn from, but not to losing generals. I'm not saying there should be statues to winning generals, either. If anything, statues of winning generals is a bit close to glorifying the wrong thing, in my opinion. But statues of the losing generals seems way over the line. 

Maybe I'm wrong. I'm open to different interpretations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Well there is the Boot Monument to Benedict Arnold .

"Benedict Arnold is not mentioned by name on the Boot Monument; the monument thus serves as a form of damnatio memoriae."  

And, it can be said that in Alcade, New Mexico the statue of Don Juan de Onate has been rendered to that of damnatio memoriae, too...... btw, Arnold didn't betray his country, a cause yes.  But, you can't betray a country that didn't exist.  Just a thought....

 

Edited by le Voyageur
spell check typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Off the top of my head, some of the most famous would likely revolve around Bonnie Prince Charlie and Culloden. He was a spectacular failure and a traitor but still revered by some. Napoleon Bonaparte. Chief Tecumseh, who was a traitor to the US but not his people. Anywhere where there have been regional conflicts and civil war, like many parts of Europe, there are monuments to local heroes who were in fact considered traitors at one point or another. Interestingly, one of the most famous statues to survive a hostile regime is the statue of Nicholas I in St. Petersberg. We all know how much the Soviets hated the tsars but thankfully they saved that one. It's one of the most famous equestrian statues in the world because of an innovation in its design, which is how I got into this whole fit over statues being torn down. My interest in old Stonewall and Lee is driven by interest not so much in them but in the horses they rode. Lee's horse, Traveller, is generally considered to be one of the greatest war horses of all time, up there with Napoleon's Marengo. Napoleon is another general whose statues and memorials were also torn down after Waterloo and his banishment, although a few survive. 

I am really sorry, though, if my personal interests got this board off on an tangent. I realize this has nothing much to do with scouting and the original post and I'm going to stop now on this topic.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, yknot said:

Off the top of my head, some of the most famous would likely revolve around Bonnie Prince Charlie and Culloden. He was a spectacular failure and a traitor but still revered by some. Napoleon Bonaparte. Chief Tecumseh, who was a traitor to the US but not his people. Anywhere where there have been regional conflicts and civil war, like many parts of Europe, there are monuments to local heroes who were in fact considered traitors at one point or another. Interestingly, one of the most famous statues to survive a hostile regime is the statue of Nicholas I in St. Petersberg. We all know how much the Soviets hated the tsars but thankfully they saved that one. It's one of the most famous equestrian statues in the world because of an innovation in its design, which is how I got into this whole fit over statues being torn down. My interest in old Stonewall and Lee is driven by interest not so much in them but in the horses they rode. Lee's horse, Traveller, is generally considered to be one of the greatest war horses of all time, up there with Napoleon's Marengo. Napoleon is another general whose statues and memorials were also torn down after Waterloo and his banishment, although a few survive. 

I am really sorry, though, if my personal interests got this board off on an tangent. I realize this has nothing much to do with scouting and the original post and I'm going to stop now on this topic.  

I'm sorry... Your interest is about the horses they rode? That's fine, be interested.  There is still no reason for us to celebrate these men.  These statues, monuments, parks, schools, buildings, etc are not legacies of these men's great horses.  They are not celebrating these men's great military prowess or their leadership of people. They are monuments created by people who refuse to accept the idea that all men are created equal decades after we fought a war about it. They celebrate a time when certain people were considered property and others felt the need to kill fellow Americans to try to keep it that way.  There is nothing to celebrate in that idea.  There is nothing to honor in that idea.  

Prince Charles Stewart and Culloden represent Scottish independence and individual identity (an idea that is not gone and not foul). Napoleon, while controversial, still represents a part of history where France was great and powerful.

Change every name and tear all the statues down.  If the DCV or the KKK wants to pay to have the statues on their property, so be it but it shouldn't be on anything my tax dollars pay for.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, yknot said:

Baden Powell was also an avowed fascist. He admired Hitler's youth movement and called Mein Kampf  a "wonderful book". Winston Churchill hated Hindus and Palestinians and wanted to use poison gas against rebellious native indigenous populations. His stalwart defense of Britain helped stem the tide of WWII, but it was based on his vision of the preservation of the British empire. FDR opposed anti lynching bills and put Japanese Americans in concentration camps. LBJ is credited with language so racist and disgusting that it's hard to read modern day despite the fact that's he's credited with some of the greatest Civil Rights advancements of our time. Although he's credited with changing his stripes, Harry Truman was remarkably racist. So, too, Woodrow Wilson, the founder of the League of Nations, the progenitor of the United Nations. McClellan, a Union general, fought for the Union but supported slavery and opposed abolition. Former president Jimmy Carter praised a lifelong segregationist, Lester Maddox. Charles de Gaulle.  Ronald Reagan. Eisenhower. All guilty of racist comments based on modern day standards. I am not trying to argue fine points of history, my argument is that people are a product of their time, and we  need to look at them through that lens. Scrubbing monuments and parks and streets and buildings of names that give some indication of that relevant history is just "feel good" PC activism and is totally anti-intellectual and anti history.

So BP "avowed" - said in so many words - that he was a "fascist."  Where?  When?  A monarchist fascist, one must assume as he was a notable monarchist.

Since you base your argument, some of which I "get," on history, you should know that,  while El Duce was the model fascist, Hitler, whom you cite, was not a "fascist." He was a "National Socialist," the leader of the National Socialist German Worker's Party.  He, like socialists in general, favored state control of the economy and the news media, which he imposed, and massive benefits for the workers, which somehow did not offset getting millions of them dead and Germany bombed flat.  As you know, Germany is fairly negative  since 1945 on statutes of The Leader, who at least never promised to cure cancer.

As for the rest, imperfect clay forms imperfect men, but those causing  the deaths of hundreds of thousands of citizens may, in due course, become unacceptable to the public, historical import or not.  Lenses, after all, not only focus light but also bend it.  

Very few, sadly, have much interest in history.

Edited by TAHAWK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, rayezell_2000 said:

It looks like there is a bit of straying from the discussion of the now defunct SJAC. I've appended a 1927 newspaper article (Staunton, Va--SJAC headquarters) which provides some needed context for this discussion.

The_News_Leader__Staunton__Virginia_12_Jan_1927__WedPage_6.pdf

This article assigns the quality of "purity" and "loyalty" to a man who betrayed his country to fight to defend the institution of slavery.  This is surely not an unbiased article.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TAHAWK said:

So BP "avowed" - said in so many words - that he was a "fascist."  Where?  When?  A monarchist fascist, one must assume as he was a notable monarchist.

Since you base your argument, some of which I "get," on history, you should know that,  while El Duce was the model fascist, Hitler, whom you cite, was not a "fascist." He was a "National Socialist," the leader of the National Socialist German Worker's Party.  He, like socialists in general, favored state control of the economy and the news media, which he imposed, and massive benefits for the workers, which somehow did not offset getting millions of them dead and Germany bombed flat.  As you know, Germany is fairly negative  since 1945 on statutes of The Leader, who at least never promised to cure cancer.

As for the rest, imperfect clay forms imperfect men, but those causing  the deaths of hundreds of thousands of citizens may, in due course, become unacceptable to the public, historical import or not.  Lenses, after all, not only focus light but also bend it.  

Very few, sadly, have much interest in history.

Your comments on Hitler seem to be colored by a desire to consider socialism wrong.  

https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×