Monuments Alabama Supreme Court Rules For 2nd Time On Birmingham CS Monument

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

archieclement

Captain
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
So you're saying that if the majority of the country believes something, then that should determine what people do at the local level? Hmmmm...

- Alan
As far as national issues? Most assuredly.....it is called US History, no idea why anyone wouldnt want the whole reflected....Hmmmmm

The civil war was a national event, hardly just a county or city event........Hint the A in ACW does stand for American...........which would reflect everyone in our country........

If theres more then one view, present them, but if the argument is that the black southern view of the war was silenced for decades, so somehow that makes silencing the view of white southerners who view the war differently somehow OK, seems one simply wishes to return to reversed Jim Crow politics, and not move past it towards inclusion and tolerance of others at all. I thought the whole goal of civil rights was inclusion of differing views and not exclusion however.
 
Last edited:

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
As far as national issues? Most assuredly.....it is called US History, no idea why anyone wouldnt want the whole reflected....Hmmmmm

The civil war was a national event, hardly just a county or city event........Hint the A in ACW does stand for American...........which would reflect everyone in our country........
We are talking about two different things.

When it comes to history instruction, there should be standards, national standards, for what is taught. One standard must be that the history is based on fact, not fancy. The Virginia history book I cited earlier clearly created a false narrative concerning history, which is unacceptable. Academics have come to a consensus on many interpretations of our history, based on primary records, historical methods, analytic reviews, etc. Our history books should be informed by this.

Commemoration is different. It is inherently subjective. The things that people value from a commemorative standpoint vary over space and place. The things people might want to commemorate in Hilo, Hawaii are not the same as those people would want to commemorate in Aiken, South Carolina (where my mother was born, by the way). Importantly, the amount of public commemorative is finite and has some cost (some or all of which are borne by the people) associated with its maintenance, so deciding the look of that space is not necessarily a trivial task.

Also, the things people might want to commemorate vary over time. The things we value today are not what our ancestors valued 150 years ago or 100 years ago or 50 years ago.

So, absolutely, when it comes to the creation of the commemorative landscape, I think the locals should decide what they want. Of course the definition of "locals" and the process by which they come to their decisions will not always be without contentiousness.

If theres more then one view, present them, but if the argument is that the black southern view of the war was silenced for decades, so somehow that makes silencing the view of white southerners who view the war differently somehow OK, seems one simply wishes to return to reversed Jim Crow politics, and not move past it towards inclusion and tolerance of others at all. I thought the whole goal of civil rights was inclusion of differing views and not exclusion however.
So, I said this:
The southern public space is owned by all southerners, and all southerners pay taxes to maintain those places. Why should anybody allow their taxes and co-owned space to be used to support a memorial landscape that is exclusionary and misrepresents southern history?​
The goal for the collectively owned commemorative landscape should be to have a place that fairly and accurately represents southern history. We know African Americans were systematically excluded from that. If we want a fair and balanced landscape, all stakeholders need to discuss how we create that, and make a plan. If there is no end goal in having a fair and balanced landscape, then I see no incentive for all the people to support it. Rather, I see a path that leads to the destruction of everything. Is that what we want?

I cannot say any more than that in response to your comment. If people say they are for inclusion, then they must actually sit down and talk about making the landscape inclusive, and next, develop an implementation plan for making that happen. Absent that, I see a path that leads to the destruction of everything. Is that what we want?

- Alan
 

archieclement

Captain
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
We are talking about two different things.

When it comes to history instruction, there should be standards, national standards, for what is taught. One standard must be that the history is based on fact, not fancy. The Virginia history book I cited earlier clearly created a false narrative concerning history, which is unacceptable. Academics have come to a consensus on many interpretations of our history, based on primary records, historical methods, analytic reviews, etc. Our history books should be informed by this.

Commemoration is different. It is inherently subjective. The things that people value from a commemorative standpoint vary over space and place. The things people might want to commemorate in Hilo, Hawaii are not the same as those people would want to commemorate in Aiken, South Carolina (where my mother was born, by the way). Importantly, the amount of public commemorative is finite and has some cost (some or all of which are borne by the people) associated with its maintenance, so deciding the look of that space is not necessarily a trivial task.

Also, the things people might want to commemorate vary over time. The things we value today are not what our ancestors valued 150 years ago or 100 years ago or 50 years ago.

So, absolutely, when it comes to the creation of the commemorative landscape, I think the locals should decide what they want. Of course the definition of "locals" and the process by which they come to their decisions will not always be without contentiousness.



So, I said this:
The southern public space is owned by all southerners, and all southerners pay taxes to maintain those places. Why should anybody allow their taxes and co-owned space to be used to support a memorial landscape that is exclusionary and misrepresents southern history?​
The goal for the collectively owned commemorative landscape should be to have a place that fairly and accurately represents southern history. We know African Americans were systematically excluded from that. If we want a fair and balanced landscape, all stakeholders need to discuss how we create that, and make a plan. If there is no end goal in having a fair and balanced landscape, then I see no incentive for all the people to support it. Rather, I see a path that leads to the destruction of everything. Is that what we want?

I cannot say any more than that in response to your comment. If people say they are for inclusion, then they must actually sit down and talk about making the landscape inclusive, and next, develop an implementation plan for making that happen. Absent that, I see a path that leads to the destruction of everything. Is that what we want?

- Alan
I disagree. If what you say is true the presentation would never change, as the history doesn't change at all.

However interpretations do change which is simply different perspectives and even politics, one can read this forum and easily see there's differing interpretations and perspectives to this day, and not some one world view, you yourself noted blacks and whites view the war differently from different perspectives in your opinion. One perspective is no more valid then another IMO, as every perspective has its own biases as to how things should be veiwed interpreted.

As far as inclusion, would think any argument that thinks what polls show is the majority view overall, should somehow be excluded, is rather absurd. The majority view is where one should start, that doesn't mean others can't be presented as well.........But if one wishes to exclude or limit views, they don't throw the prevalent one out........

And that the CW was somehow only local is absurd, it was national event, it affected the national consciousness, and is the history of the entire nation as well. See little reason how it's memorialized and remembered shouldn't belong to us as a whole as well. If one somehow wished to localize something that refers to "Confederate" or "Confederacy" would seem by definition it would be a 13 state locality.........

Though as to the OP a unanimous 9-0 Supreme Court decision would seem to settle it as far as locality definition in Alabama, and just a city such as Birmingham isnt it. Which seems right to me. Its rather simple, the higher level of government one goes to, the more people that is reflected, and the more inclusive it is to the whole. Which if one values including peoples views and perspectives, is obviously a good thing to try to include as many people as one can........rather then what would appear an attempt to gerrymander a minority view, as see little motive to otherwise to try to purposely limit or exclude people from a decision.
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
I disagree. If what you say is true the presentation would never change, as the history doesn't change at all.

However interpretations do change which is simply different perspectives and even politics, one can read this forum and easily see there's differing interpretations and perspectives to this day, and not some one world view, you yourself noted blacks and whites view the war differently from different perspectives in your opinion.
What you're saying is not really getting to the points I was making. We have a failure to communicate. I'll try this.

Regarding history education: My point about history education is simply that it should be based on sound historical interpretation, but that has not always been the case. I think everyone would agree with that.

Now, this image I cited earlier, from a VA textbook released in 1957, is not based on any sound historical interpretation. In fact, the image is a lie:

5abab8ce7bf21-image-jpg-jpg-jpg.jpg


We need to understand: there is a difference between valid disagreement over historical interpretations, which will always exists among historians; and the creation of historical narratives that are false and misleading. What we see above is not a controversial interpretation; it's a fraud.

Why did I bring this up? I was trying to explain why some Southern whites might be joining the monument protest movement. Recollect, one of the main proponents of this protest has been Mitch Landrieu, the white mayor of New Orleans.

If one was raised with the idea that stuff like the above represents actual history, it would affect his or her world view. For example, one might believe that slavery was a benign and benevolent institution. As these fraudulent interpretations are replaced by sound interpretations, both black and white Southerners are being raised with a factual understanding of the history. The way that many Southern whites view the current commemorative landscape is probably different from how their ancestors did.

Hence, where we are now. Are these white folks adopting the "black" view and rejecting the "white" view? I think they would say, we are adopting the right view.

One perspective is no more valid then another IMO, as every perspective has its own biases as to how things should be veiwed interpreted.

As far as inclusion, would think any argument that thinks what polls show is the majority view overall, should somehow be excluded, is rather absurd. The majority view is where one should start, that doesn't mean others can't be presented as well.........But if one wishes to exclude or limit views, they don't throw the prevalent one out........

And that the CW was somehow only local is absurd, it was national event, it affected the national consciousness, and is the history of the entire nation as well. See little reason how it's memorialized and remembered shouldn't belong to us as a whole as well. If one somehow wished to localize something that refers to "Confederate" or "Confederacy" would seem by definition it would be a 13 state locality.........

Though as to the OP a unanimous 9-0 Supreme Court decision would seem to settle it as far as locality definition in Alabama, and just a city such as Birmingham isnt it. Which seems right to me. Its rather simple, the higher level of government one goes to, the more people that is reflected, and the more inclusive it is to the whole. Which if one values including peoples views and perspectives, is obviously a good thing to try to include as many people as one can........rather then what would appear an attempt to gerrymander a minority view, as see little motive to otherwise to try to purposely limit or exclude people from a decision.
On the one hand you say, "One perspective is no more valid then another IMO, as every perspective has its own biases as to how things should be veiwed interpreted." On the other hand, you say the majority should prevail.

It's really really really hard to respond to this without getting into modern politics. I don't know how to do it.

I would just make the comment that, Alabama had a seminal role in the Civil Rights Movement. Famously, Rosa Parks and Dr.Martin Luther King, Jr were part of the mid-1950's Montgomery bus boycott. When that boycott was conducted, it was the majority view that it was OK for certain people to sit in the back of the bus, among other things. It took federal intervention to overcome the majority's discriminatory policies.

I do not want to imply or infer that things are no better today than back then, or that any actions with respect to monuments are based on any old time bias. I am saying the idea that "the majority view is where one should start", that is not something that resonates with me, when looking at US history and culture, especially that of the South. I will leave it at that.

- Alan
 

archieclement

Captain
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
What you're saying is not really getting to the points I was making. We have a failure to communicate. I'll try this.

Regarding history education: My point about history education is simply that it should be based on sound historical interpretation, but that has not always been the case. I think everyone would agree with that.

Now, this image I cited earlier, from a VA textbook released in 1957, is not based on any sound historical interpretation. In fact, the image is a lie:

View attachment 345421

We need to understand: there is a difference between valid disagreement over historical interpretations, which will always exists among historians; and the creation of historical narratives that are false and misleading. What we see above is not a controversial interpretation; it's a fraud.

Why did I bring this up? I was trying to explain why some Southern whites might be joining the monument protest movement. Recollect, one of the main proponents of this protest has been Mitch Landrieu, the white mayor of New Orleans.

If one was raised with the idea that stuff like the above represents actual history, it would affect his or her world view. For example, one might believe that slavery was a benign and benevolent institution. As these fraudulent interpretations are replaced by sound interpretations, both black and white Southerners are being raised with a factual understanding of the history. The way that many Southern whites view the current commemorative landscape is probably different from how their ancestors did.

Hence, where we are now. Are these white folks adopting the "black" view and rejecting the "white" view? I think they would say, we are adopting the right view.



On the one hand you say, "One perspective is no more valid then another IMO, as every perspective has its own biases as to how things should be veiwed interpreted." On the other hand, you say the majority should prevail.

It's really really really hard to respond to this without getting into modern politics. I don't know how to do it.

I would just make the comment that, Alabama had a seminal role in the Civil Rights Movement. Famously, Rosa Parks and Dr.Martin Luther King, Jr were part of the mid-1950's Montgomery bus boycott. When that boycott was conducted, it was the majority view that it was OK for certain people to sit in the back of the bus, among other things. It took federal intervention to overcome the majority's discriminatory policies.

I do not want to imply or infer that things are no better today than back then, or that any actions with respect to monuments are based on any old time bias. I am saying the idea that "the majority view is where one should start", that is not something that resonates with me, when looking at US history and culture, especially that of the South. I will leave it at that.

- Alan
Actually i get you were changing the subject. The OP is monuments and memorials, and Alabama ruling a city isnt the locality to decide......yes I realize textbooks have nothing to do with the OP, so havent gone there

And please quit misrepresenting what I have said........as I havent said the majority should prevail at all......what I have said is the majority should least be included in views presented.......Never have I said only one perspective should be the only perspective, or any monument that doesnt fit one perspective needs to be removed at all. We have always been a country of diversity. Those wishing to remove public symbols of views that they dont agree with personally, are the only ones pushing intolerance.

I think a democracy and a representative republic has served us well over our history, certainly think it would be preferable to some one party junta excluding any dissenting views, If one thinks otherwise, I'll gladly agree to disagree, as see little reason to abandon our democratic principles..... And that I thought we have been trying to move towards a more inclusive society of others, and not excluding anyone you happen to disagree with from being represented......Inclusive would not only include presenting other views, but actually including them in a say of what will be done.......which would mean not gerrymandering to get a view approved that one knows in fact isnt reflective of the majority....

If we wish to learn from our past, and think repressing other groups views or perspectives was wrong in the past, really don't understand wishing to repeat it in a different form today.

BTW the one mentioning race and portraying it as "black vrs white" constantly isnt me........I would view it more political then racial, but we arent supposed to discuss modern politics, so I havent.........but personally think neither have much a place in deciding history. We dont need or should have "white and black", democrat and republican", or "north or south" textbooks or memorials, nor should they change constantly with political or demographic winds, as 150 yr old events dont change at all. We are one country, if you want one standard reflecting the majority of the nation.......I see no issue with that at all.
 
Last edited:

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
Actually i get you were changing the subject. The OP is monuments and memorials, and Alabama ruling a city isnt the locality to decide......yes I realize textbooks have nothing to do with the OP, so havent gone there
a) My comments were made in response to other members, and I feel I was as on-topic as they were.

b) There is a lot in your post that is not specifically about the Alabama and the ruling, yet you do say them.

c) My comments are made in an effort to contextualize this discussion of monuments. The controversy over the AL monuments does not exist in a vacuum. Others have made attempts to add context, and I have noted my differences with some of those comments. I know people are not going to agree with these, but I think it important to hear other voices on this subject.
----

RE: And please quit misrepresenting what I have said........as I havent said the majority should prevail at all......

I said this: "On the one hand you say, "One perspective is no more valid then another IMO, as every perspective has its own biases as to how things should be veiwed interpreted." On the other hand, you say the majority should prevail."

My comment regarding the majority prevailing was based on this:
Would think the simplest answer would be follow the national polls which indicate the majority of Americans are in favor of leaving memorials in place.
-----

RE: I think a democracy and a representative republic has served us well over our history, certainly think it would be preferable to some one party junta excluding any dissenting views, If one thinks otherwise, I'll gladly agree to disagree, as see little reason to abandon our democratic principles.....

Our democracy and representative republic did not serve enslaved people well, nor did it serve African Americans who lived under Jim Crow well. I would agree that I wouldn't want junta politics.

From an aspirational perspective, our democratic principles are great! But their implementation has not been perfect, and one result is that we have inherited an unfair and unbalanced commemorative landscape. This is context, it helps explain how we got to where we are right now.

----
RE: what I have said is the majority should least be included in views presented.......Never have I said only one perspective should be the only perspective, or any monument that doesnt fit one perspective needs to be removed at all. We have always been a country of diversity. Those wishing to remove public symbols of views that they dont agree with personally, are the only ones pushing intolerance.

OK, what I said was this, a couple of times:

The southern public space is owned by all southerners, and all southerners pay taxes to maintain those places. Why should anybody allow their taxes and co-owned space to be used to support a memorial landscape that is exclusionary and misrepresents southern history?​
The goal for the collectively owned commemorative landscape should be to have a place that fairly and accurately represents southern history. We know African Americans were systematically excluded from that. If we want a fair and balanced landscape, all stakeholders need to discuss how we create that, and make a plan. If there is no end goal in having a fair and balanced landscape, then I see no incentive for all the people to support it. Rather, I see a path that leads to the destruction of everything. Is that what we want?

It seems we are both saying that we want an inclusive commemorative landscape. I go beyond that and say there is a path to get to that inclusive landscape, which I don't see being taken. Absent that, I see the destruction of everything. Which is exactly the future you are concerned about. At some point, we need to go beyond the airing of grievances, and get people talking about exactly how the landscape should look, and about plans to make that happen.

- Alan
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

archieclement

Captain
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
a) My comments were made in response to other members, and I feel I was as on-topic as they were.

b) There is a lot in your post that is not specifically about the Alabama and the ruling, yet you do say them.

c) My comments are made in an effort to contextualize this discussion of monuments. The controversy over the AL monuments does not exist in a vacuum. Others have made attempts to add context, and I have noted my differences to some of those comments. I know people are not going to agree with these, but I think it important to hear other voices on this subject.
----

RE: And please quit misrepresenting what I have said........as I havent said the majority should prevail at all......

I said this: "On the one hand you say, "One perspective is no more valid then another IMO, as every perspective has its own biases as to how things should be veiwed interpreted." On the other hand, you say the majority should prevail."

My comment regarding the majority prevailing was based on this:

-----

RE: I think a democracy and a representative republic has served us well over our history, certainly think it would be preferable to some one party junta excluding any dissenting views, If one thinks otherwise, I'll gladly agree to disagree, as see little reason to abandon our democratic principles.....

Our democracy and a representative republic did not serve enslaved people well, nor did it serve African Americans who lived under Jim Crow well. I would agree that I wouldn't want junta politics.

From an aspirational perspective, our democratic principles are great! But their implementation has not been perfect, and one result is that we have inherited an unfair and unbalanced commemorative landscape as a result. This is context, it helps explain how we got to where we are right now.

----
RE: what I have said is the majority should least be included in views presented.......Never have I said only one perspective should be the only perspective, or any monument that doesnt fit one perspective needs to be removed at all. We have always been a country of diversity. Those wishing to remove public symbols of views that they dont agree with personally, are the only ones pushing intolerance.

OK, what I said was this, a couple of times:

The southern public space is owned by all southerners, and all southerners pay taxes to maintain those places. Why should anybody allow their taxes and co-owned space to be used to support a memorial landscape that is exclusionary and misrepresents southern history?​
The goal for the collectively owned commemorative landscape should be to have a place that fairly and accurately represents southern history. We know African Americans were systematically excluded from that. If we want a fair and balanced landscape, all stakeholders need to discuss how we create that, and make a plan. If there is no end goal in having a fair and balanced landscape, then I see no incentive for all the people to support it. Rather, I see a path that leads to the destruction of everything. Is that what we want?

It seems we are both saying that we want an inclusive commemorative landscape. I go beyond that and say there is a path to get to that inclusive landscape, which I don't see being taken. Absent that, I see the destruction of everything. Which is exactly the future you are concerned about. At some point, we need to go beyond the airing of grievances, and get people talking about exactly how the landscape should look, and about plans to make that happen.

- Alan
Glad we agree, inclusive does involve including everyone in a decision.......which will boil down to the majority as I originally suggested then. Majority rule is rather fundamental to democratic principles, it's not a bad thing, especially in a country that included built in checks and balances so the majority can change it's direction, requiring a 2/3rds majority helps prevent it flip flopping around in the political wind on whims however. Our founders were pretty shrewd, why we have stood the test of time.
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top