Those Confederate DAR Monuments and the GOP Narrative

From Confederate Statues Were Never Really About Preserving History:


In aggregate, the monuments are a monument to white privilege and white indifference. #BlackLivesMatter

Absolutely.

Yep. The Confederate Monument from the United Daughters of the Confederacy in Lake View Cemetery in the Capitol Hill area of Seattle didn't fare well over the past few weeks. You can see a picture of the aftermath in this post:
Statues

Jayhawker Soule said:

From Confederate Statues Were Never Really About Preserving History:

The biggest spike in Confederate memorials came during the early 1900s, soon after Southern states enacted a number of sweeping laws to disenfranchise Black Americans and segregate society. During this period, more than 400 monuments were built as part of an organized strategy to reshape Civil War history. And this effort was largely spearheaded by the United Daughters of the Confederacy, who sponsored hundreds of statues, predominantly in the South in the early 20th century — and as recently as 2011.​

In aggregate, the monuments are a monument to white privilege and white indifference. #BlackLivesMatter

Click to expand...

Although I agree Confederate monuments show white privilege and white indifference they aren't in my top ten of things that need to be fixed for the BLM movement. They are a distraction a hype point to diffuse the effort of BLM. I wish BLM would consolidate more around the real issue's and ignore the distractions from the Conservative Right. You can take down all the monuments tomorrow and Black lives will still not be improved. The monuments aren't causing a problem they are just a symbol of the problem.

Jayhawker Soule said:

From Confederate Statues Were Never Really About Preserving History:

The biggest spike in Confederate memorials came during the early 1900s, soon after Southern states enacted a number of sweeping laws to disenfranchise Black Americans and segregate society. During this period, more than 400 monuments were built as part of an organized strategy to reshape Civil War history. And this effort was largely spearheaded by the United Daughters of the Confederacy, who sponsored hundreds of statues, predominantly in the South in the early 20th century — and as recently as 2011.​

In aggregate, the monuments are a monument to white privilege and white indifference. #BlackLivesMatter

Click to expand...

I think the language around the statues belies their true meaning while also attempting to obscure it.

As some liberal memes have pointed out, the 5-year lifespan of the Confederacy was shorter than that of many TV shows or hairstyles. Someone saying that this historical blip is their "heritage" makes no sense at all... if what they say is taken at face value.

When people talk about these statues reflecting their "heritage," they're talking about the white supremacy of the Jim Crow era (or of the entire 400+ years since race-based slavery began in the Americas).

I find it useful to remind myself of this in discussions around these statues, state flags, etc.: a 5-year blip in the life of a person's great- or great-great-grandparents is not their "heritage." When they use that term, they're talking about something much longer-lasting.

bobhikes said:

Although I agree Confederate monuments show white privilege and white indifference they aren't in my top ten of things that need to be fixed for the BLM movement. They are a distraction a hype point to diffuse the effort of BLM. I wish BLM would consolidate more around the real issue's and ignore the distractions from the Conservative Right. You can take down all the monuments tomorrow and Black lives will still not be improved. The monuments aren't causing a problem they are just a symbol of the problem.

Click to expand...

Taking down a monument has purpose at least as a show of power that can be useful going forward.

The establishment has attempted to stop these statues from coming down; they've been toppling one-by-one anyway.

In any negotiation, the strength of each side's position is (generally) a function of their BATNA. At the very least, toppling statues demonstrates that the BLM is strong enough and determined enough to eventually get what they want through protest and direct action, while the establishment is too weak to stop them.

That's one heck of a BATNA for BLM, and it's been demonstrated in a way that's very concrete, not depending on hypothetical assessments of BLM's strength and determination that could be called into doubt.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

As some liberal memes have pointed out, the 5-year lifespan of the Confederacy was shorter than that of many TV shows or hairstyles. Someone saying that this historical blip is their "heritage" makes no sense at all... if what they say is taken at face value..

Click to expand...

What a great observation!

As always with events like this, logic and emotion go their separate ways. Logically those symbols are a symptom. Emotionally tearing them down feels good and feels like something was accomplished.

My grandmother was a member of the DAR and also the DUV (Daughters of Union Veterans). I guess I could be eligible to be an SAR, but the only organization which would have me is the SOB.

Stevicus said:

My grandmother was a member of the DAR and also the DUV (Daughters of Union Veterans). I guess I could be eligible to be an SAR, but the only organization which would have me is the SOB.

Click to expand...

Better'n STD & UTI.

I could never understand why anyone any real American would want to erect a statue to losers. We Americans like winners - right?

ecco said:

I could never understand why anyone any real American would want to erect a statue to losers. We Americans like winners - right?

Click to expand...

Winner or loser....all's ya gotta be is famous.

ecco said:

I could never understand why anyone any real American would want to erect a statue to losers. We Americans like winners - right?

Click to expand...

Winner or loser....all's ya gotta be is famous.

ecco said:

I could never understand why anyone any real American would want to erect a statue to losers. We Americans like winners - right?

Click to expand...

I know exactly why. We have something similar in Canada, but in a more positive way:

Our 1837 Rebellion was put down decisively by the British authorities. Nevertheless, it paved a path forward and caused significant lasting effects that were in line with the rebels' goals. The Canadian rebels became national heroes, and a century later, we even had a Prime Minister named after - and descended from - one of the leaders of the rebellion.

So in this respect, I see precisely why someone would celebrate people who lost on the battlefield but created a lasting legacy.

It's just that the lasting legacy of the 1837 Rebellion was greater political representation, a clampdown on corruption, and ultimately, Canada's independence, while the lasting legacy of the Confederacy is white supremacy and continued subjugation of the descendants of slaves.

... which goes back to my earlier point: the position of modern-day Confederacy supporters only makes sense if you take it as praising the post-war legacy of the Confederacy... i.e. Jim Crow.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

I know exactly why. We have something similar in Canada, but in a more positive way:

Our 1837 Rebellion was put down decisively by the British authorities. Nevertheless, it paved a path forward and caused significant lasting effects that were in line with the rebels' goals. The Canadian rebels became national heroes, and a century later, we even had a Prime Minister named after - and descended from - one of the leaders of the rebellion.

So in this respect, I see precisely why someone would celebrate people who lost on the battlefield but created a lasting legacy.

Click to expand...

In Australia, our largest military-related celebration is ANZAC Day. This commemorates our sound defeat on the shores of Turkey in WW1. It's basically a way to remember the service of our soldiers, our increasing independence as a nation (as opposed to being a British colony) and the damage caused by war. But it was very clearly a defeat. It's a very important day on the Australian calendar.

And in Victoria the only armed insurrection we've ever really had against the government was a thing called 'the Eureka Rebellion'. At least 27 died, so it's not exactly at the level of 'global conflict'. Miners rebelled against oppressive British licensing laws, and again it is somewhat seen as establishment of an Australian identity (rightly or wrongly). You might have even seen the flag they raised, since it still gets used in some senses now...(designed by a Canadian, incidentally)


The other folklore-ish character that fits in this categorisation is Ned Kelly, a notorious bushranger who ended up hanged. His gang fought a pitched battle against police before his capture, and wore the famous (in Australia at the very least) body armour, and helmet you might have seen depicted.


Of the three, it's Ned Kelly who is probably the most controversial, and in some ways has the most parallel with the Lost Cause narrative. Australians often wax lyrical about his bravery in the face of an overwhelming Federal response, with the saying 'As bold as Ned Kelly' being an actual thing. For those who remember his legacy fondly, there is generally mention about him defending his family, and of the hard nature of the Federal government, and her representatives.