http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2018/01/what_is_the_clotilda_last_slav.html

Would be a great historical find.

Indeed it would.

oragator said:

---

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2018/01/what_is_the_clotilda_last_slav.html

Would be a great historical find.

---

Yes.

That is until the SJW types get wind of it and demand it be destroyed.

edit - just read the article. Ok, so not destroyed, but ripped from the ground in however many pieces and burned for firewood.

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

oragator said:

---

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2018/01/what_is_the_clotilda_last_slav.html

Would be a great historical find.

---

Yes.

That is until the SJW types get wind of it and demand it be destroyed.

edit - just read the article. Ok, so not destroyed, but ripped from the ground in however many pieces and burned for firewood.

---

Despite what you think, the issue is not with preserving history, including unsavory history. It's what is glorified in that history that causes arguments. No one is suggesting they glorify this ship.

NormanAg said:

---

Quote:

---

It's what is glorified in that history that causes arguments.

---

So it's only credentialed Historians get to decide what "glorified" means? BS. The HISTORY of the pontifications of "Historians" is replete with CONSTANTLY changing views on what should be "glorified" and what should not.

Your posts just parrot the current view of what should be glorified and what should not.

How about this idea? Don't try and rewrite history. What was "glorified" in the past was done so as a reflection of the times.

Report that, don't endorse it, but DON'T CONDEMN it either! For better or worse - it happened. Condemning it now is a fools errand - no way in hell does it change "history"

Report it - analyze the culture of the time, provide a description of the that culture, and describe the rational for the "glorification". And in the closing paragraph, describe how "times have changed" and what was once "glorified" is no longer viewed in the same light.

---

We shouldn't recognize that maybe what was glorified for bad reasons shouldn't continue to be glorified? Interesting. So nothing changes? Nothing in the way we discuss History should change aside from a concluding paragraph in a book?

NormanAg said:

---

I posted this:

Quote:

---

Your posts just parrot the current view of what should be glorified and what should not.

---

IMO Historians should recognize what was "glorified" in the past and explain the reasons why it was. And then acknowledge that our "times and our culture" have changed and what was ONCE glorified is no longer glorified.

To condemn the past without acknowledging the culture of the time is wrong. Removing statues and monuments that were erected a 100 years ago or so denies history and is an attempt to erase it. And has already pointed out on this thread - THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT ISIS HAS DONE!

Interpret history - don't deny it, rewrite it, or attempt to erase it. We LEARN from history - if we erase it, we aren't going to learn anything from it. And we will continue to make the same mistakes.

---

Removing statues doesn't erase the past if you're talking about history in a literate age. For example, without trying to go Godwin, we haven't kept Nazi monuments up in Germany for a reason. Those that are left are left for a very specific reason and are intended to convey shame in our era. That hasn't prevented historians from interpreting history accurately or prevented people from learning from the Nazi's mistakes. The same can be said for monuments honoring slavery advocates. There's no reason they have to stand just because they've been there. Removing them doesn't deny history or erase it. It does change the myth and narrative of what actually happened from celebratory to more measured.

No it doesn't.

Indeed. In Germany you have to look pretty hard to find direct traces of the Nazi regime. We and the postwar Germans worked very hard to destroy and remove anything that glorified or represented Nazi Germany. In no way is the "history" of Nazi Germany erased, it's a very vibrant field of study with new material coming out all the time. Furthermore, history isn't necessarily the physical object so much as the record of the object and its significance and use. This is particularly the case with things that were built to memorialize the past.

The point about ISIS and ancient artifacts was brought up. I think it's important to remember that one of the reasons ancient artifacts are so precious is that we know relatively little from those time periods (opposed to anything from the recent past). Often those ruins are almost all we have from that culture and people. They also serve as a physical link to that past and in some ways the only record. The discovery of this slave ship is fascinating and exciting, but will likely tell us very little that we don't already know about be slave trade or the antebellum South.

A statue from the 1890s will tell us nothing new about the Civil War, but it can represent how people felt about the war at the time (also not new or unknown). The question becomes what role does a postwar memorialization serve in society today? This isn't a question about the preservation of history, the Civil War is by far the most studied subject in the field of history. We also know a great deal about how the South dealt with the legacy of the war. I disagree with anyone arguing for the destruction of a statue, but I do think more context should be provided if society feels a statue is controversial.

Quote:

---

I swear, I think we're dumber today than we were 100 years ago.

---

Spot on! It appears to me that some on this thread seem to think that "History" is primarily for - Historians. We don't need statues and memorials to remind us of the Civil War, etc. "Everyone" knows about those events - except the fact is 'everyone" DOES NOT KNOW very much about those events.

It is well documented that most Americans (including college grads) knowledge of history is abysmal. Even many college grads can't tell you the dates for the American Revolution, the Civil War, and even WWII.

Historical statues and monuments, at the very least, serve as reminders to those who lack historical knowledge that yes, we did fight a war to gain our independence from Great Britain, we did fight a Civil War, and we did fight two "World Wars" that cost millions of lives and untold destruction.

The fact that so many of our citizens are "offended" by these statues and monuments (from throughout our history - not just the Civil War) is proof we have become a nation of snowflakes. We would never have won WWII with this kind of viewpoint and outlook. And hell -even WWI might have ended in a fashion that would have severely altered the future advancement of our country.

NormanAg said:

---

Quote:

---

I swear, I think we're dumber today than we were 100 years ago.

---

Spot on! It appears to me that some on this thread seem to think that "History" is primarily for - Historians. We don't need statues and memorials to remind us of the Civil War, etc. "Everyone" knows about those events - except the fact is 'everyone" DOES NOT KNOW very much about those events.

It is well documented that most Americans (including college grads) knowledge of history is abysmal. Even many college grads can't tell you the dates for the American Revolution, the Civil War, and even WWII.

Historical statues and monuments, at the very least, serve as reminders to those who lack historical knowledge that yes, we did fight a war to gain our independence from Great Britain, we did fight a Civil War, and we did fight two "World Wars" that cost millions of lives and untold destruction.

The fact that so many of our citizens are "offended" by these statues and monuments (from throughout our history - not just the Civil War) is proof we have become a nation of snowflakes. We would never have won WWII with this kind of viewpoint and outlook. And hell -even WWI might have ended in a fashion that would have severely altered the future advancement of our country.

---

Those statues tell a very specific story. Often not one that tells history honestly or openly. That's the problem.

SRBS said:

---

Folks like you who should be open minded but are instead blinded by ideology are certainly a problem.

---

What does this even mean?

NormanAg said:

---

Quote:

---

What does this even mean?

---

I understand exactly what it means - your lib bias is showing with this statement you posted:

Quote:

---

Those statues tell a very specific story. Often not one that tells history honestly or openly.

---

That is YOUR opinion - and a very biased opinion at that.

Just who gets to decide which statues/monuments are "Often not one that tells history honestly or openly."

IMO historians should evaluate past history with a mind to the prevailing cultural beliefs, customs, etc of the time - NOT "interpret" that history based on CURRENT cultural beliefs, customs, etc.

---

Historians use a wide variety of sources to untangle these issues and arrive at conclusions based on the evidence. Confederate statues typically erected during periods of racial conflict were not reflecting the whole history but rather a myth convenient for the moment.

Historians do look at the prevailing norms and beliefs of an era. They also look at the strength of those beliefs and alternative beliefs that existed and confronted the prevailing beliefs. By your standard, Nazi memorials and statues should have stayed since they were erected when most of the German people believed in those values. But that's not the whole story, is it? Your interpretation of these statues leaves out black voices that were powerless when the statues went up. And it ignores that statues are rarely history themselves but represent the present as well as the past.

NormanAg said:

---

Quote:

---

I swear, I think we're dumber today than we were 100 years ago.

---

Spot on! It appears to me that some on this thread seem to think that "History" is primarily for - Historians. We don't need statues and memorials to remind us of the Civil War, etc. "Everyone" knows about those events - except the fact is 'everyone" DOES NOT KNOW very much about those events.

It is well documented that most Americans (including college grads) knowledge of history is abysmal. Even many college grads can't tell you the dates for the American Revolution, the Civil War, and even WWII.

Historical statues and monuments, at the very least, serve as reminders to those who lack historical knowledge that yes, we did fight a war to gain our independence from Great Britain, we did fight a Civil War, and we did fight two "World Wars" that cost millions of lives and untold destruction.

The fact that so many of our citizens are "offended" by these statues and monuments (from throughout our history - not just the Civil War) is proof we have become a nation of snowflakes. We would never have won WWII with this kind of viewpoint and outlook. And hell -even WWI might have ended in a fashion that would have severely altered the future advancement of our country.

---

This is where your earlier point about the context of when and why the statues were emplaced comes in. However many of the statues in question aren't about the Civil War itself so much as the postwar South. Many of these statues were paid for and emplaced by people who wanted to honor the Confederate leaders and further the lost cause narrative.

I'm all for explaining this history, but it's not hard to imagine how a black person might be offended by a statue honoring a Confederate leader that was set up by people who espoused a revisionist narrative about the war and created a postwar society that created and maintained many of the social structures that oppressed former slaves for nearly a century after the war.

College Station has a great statue in Veterans' Park of two Civil War soldiers heading home (north and south) with a plaque about the war. This is exactly the kind statue and memorial that actually tells the history of the war and honors the average, unnamed soldier.

By the way, this "nation of snowflakes" has been at war for 16 years, something no other generation has had to do.

NormanAg said:

---

Quote:

---

What does this even mean?

---

I understand exactly what it means - your lib bias is showing with this statement you posted:

Quote:

---

Those statues tell a very specific story. Often not one that tells history honestly or openly.

---

That is YOUR opinion - and a very biased opinion at that.

Just who gets to decide which statues/monuments are "Often not one that tells history honestly or openly."

IMO historians should evaluate past history with a mind to the prevailing cultural beliefs, customs, etc of the time - NOT "interpret" that history based on CURRENT cultural beliefs, customs, etc.

---

Are you familiar with the Lost Cause myth? That's what many of the statues were raised to propagate.

BQ78 said:

---

Watson:

Your "final aribitor" of worthy statues, historians, aren't the ones calling for the removal of Confederate statues, it is liberal SJWs and liberal city councils now that they control major inner cities where the statues are located.

BTW the Confederate comparison to Nazis is over the top and wrong.

---

I posted this last summer:

The AHA, one of the biggest associations of historians in the US, has released a statement on Confederate statues and memorials. Basically they state that discussions about how we memorialize the Civil War are important and that more historical context to both the War and the memorials are necessary. If statues are under consideration to be removed they say the communities should debate the statue in question with full understanding of how and why it was raised in the first place and the AHA offers to put officials from any level of government in touch with an expert to help the community better understand the historical context. If the community still choses to remove the statue, it must be put in a museum or history park that allows the statue to be part of the broader historical narrative.

I think we can all agree that more context and a comprehensive discussion about the history would be really beneficial in these situations.

Ag_EQ12 said:

---

BQ78 said:

---

Watson:

Your "final aribitor" of worthy statues, historians, aren't the ones calling for the removal of Confederate statues, it is liberal SJWs and liberal city councils now that they control major inner cities where the statues are located.

BTW the Confederate comparison to Nazis is over the top and wrong.

---

I posted this last summer:

The AHA, one of the biggest associations of historians in the US, has released a statement on Confederate statues and memorials. Basically they state that discussions about how we memorialize the Civil War are important and that more historical context to both the War and the memorials are necessary. If statues are under consideration to be removed they say the communities should debate the statue in question with full understanding of how and why it was raised in the first place and the AHA offers to put officials from any level of government in touch with an expert to help the community better understand the historical context. If the community still choses to remove the statue, it must be put in a museum or history park that allows the statue to be part of the broader historical narrative.

I think we can all agree that more context and a comprehensive discussion about the history would be really beneficial in these situations.

---

As a history major, I wasn't going to write a long winded response, but this pretty much covers it. The idea isn't to not remember, it's to remember in context - most civil war confederate statues for instance weren't erected after the war, they went up in the 20th century, largely in the context of and in backlash to the racial strife of their eras. That is partly why they are so offensive to so many.
If that statue sits out front of a statehouse or on public land without context, it appears to be an endorsement to many, if it sits in a museum with a full recording of the person's life, what they did and why, why the statue went up etc, that is valuable history to remember.

As far as the boat itself, it certainly as value as a tangible reminder of our past. Additionally, digs like that can turn up artificial that help inform on living conditions, customs etc. These are gold for historians.

Quote:

---

I think we can all agree that more context and a comprehensive discussion about the history would be really beneficial in these situations.

---

Absolutely! Could't agree more.