It's just history. Support Atun-Shei Films on Patreon ► / atunsheifilms Leave a Tip via Paypal ► www.paypal.me/atunsheifilms Buy Merch ► teespring.com/stores/atun-she... Official Website ► www.atunsheifilms.com/
Imagine walking through a park and seeing a monument built to honor a guy who wanted to see your ancestors enslaved. Why was it put up? Because he wanted to see your ancestors enslaved.
"monument for the battle of liberty place" Alright "where white nationalists battled with the police" Okay makes sense, it's probably a monument commemorating the police force "monument honors the white league as martyrs" Holdup
Maybe they should make a new monument commemorating the police instead. Just cause the white league shouldn't get a monument doesn't mean the event should be forgotten.
@@HIGHCOMMAND42 yeah some confederate soldiers weren’t racist, doesn’t mean we should honour the confederacy though. Like some Wehrmacht soldiers weren’t members of the NSDAP or supported their ideology but doesn’t mean we should fly NSDAP flags in commiseration
And that detail is crucial. They were a direct responce by people who did not want the equality that was being argued by MLK. That is was those statues signify. History does not occur in a vacuum. Who built what, when and especially why matters.
Most Confederate statues were erected between 1890 and 1929, about 30 years after the end of the Civil War. During this time Jim Crow laws were being enacted, and the first generation of African Americans born outside of slavery were deemed a threat to white people and their way of life.
That talk about Lee being respected by both sides reminds me of how the Red Baron was hugely respected by both sides. When he was shot down locals in the area tore apart his plane because they all wanted a piece of that history. But the death of Baron von Richthofen actually shows a very consistent thing about Germany's mentality for war: namely that their best were put out there at the front until they won or were dead, while here in the US the prevailing ideology was to pull the best out of combat so they could train others. The Red Baron has 80 aerial combat victories to his name, the most of any pilot in WWI, while Rickenbacker, the US's best pilot, has only 26 before they pulled him from combat to train incoming pilots. Germany even carried that mentality into WWII, so as the war dragged on their pool of elite pilots just got smaller and smaller. Sorry, weird aside for a video about statues in New Orleans.
von Richthofen is also interesting in that in his writings, he presented a pretty sombre outlook on his role as a soldier; "I am in wretched spirits after every aerial combat. I believe that [the war] is not as the people at home imagine it, with a hurrah and a roar; it is very serious, very grim." Apparently, he came to regret truly regret every death he's caused, and followed the path he did only due to patriotism. Another quote, this time from his book: "My father discriminates between a sportsman and a butcher. The former shoots for fun. When I have shot down an Englishman my hunting passion is satisfied for a quarter of an hour. Therefore I do not succeed in shooting two Englishmen in succession. If one of them comes down I have the feeling of complete satisfaction. Only much, much later I have overcome my instinct and have become a butcher." And that's from a book that was HEAVILY censored for propaganda purposes. Also, in the book he often makes mention of his great pleasure to make acquaintance with his supposed enemies. In one passage, he mentions the particular pleasure he had when he managed to bring down an airplane with the crew alive, and have a chat with them. I can't escape the feeling he'd much rather make friends with them.
@@Tigershark_3082 It was especially prevalent in Pacific Warfare. The Japanese practiced the same thing, and as a result, the rotation of our pilots and air crews, meant their tricks weren't working.
@@michaireneuszjakubowski5289 I should note that Manfreds hatred of killing and self hating only appears after he suffered a head wound in 1917. Before that he seemed to enjoy it a little too much. And it eventually became a real suicidal fatalism, that he deserved to die and would die. The mans story is actually a lot more complicated and sad then you'd think. There's a lot of mythology surrounding the air war, that it was noble and gallant, Knights of the Sky they said. It was usually kids 18 and younger getting in wooden crates and dying horrific deaths from ah enemy that was never seen.
Actually, only the most ignorant "educated fool" (Someone who has been EDUCATED to be a FOOL!) would contend that Robert E. Lee was not in favor of monuments to our Southern heroes! In the correct context what Lee said, translated into gutter English that you can understand, "Don't be puttin' up any marble Johnny Rebs plantin' a marble Rebel flag in a marble Billy Yank's nasty butt! " Comprende???
It commemorated a terrorist group that murdered 100 people at once, including police officers. That's like if New York City erected a monument to praise the 9/11 attackers. How in the flipping hell could anyone possibly defend this?
If you really think about what "white supremacy" means you'll realise its not racist. Feelings of superiority exist in every single human interest. In politics one side feels superior to another. In science one theory feels superior to another. People who like Hip Hop feel their music is superior to Metal. Suddenly when it comes to race then its a problem? But blacks feel superior, thats why the hang out with other blacks. And Mexicans feel superior, thats why they hang out with other Mexicans. Whites cannot do this. To stop people from feeling superior is a form of oppression because as I have explained above superiority is part of human nature. You want to deny people of their humanity. This is why I am no longer a liberal but a conservative. Because the future the progressives imagine is poorly thought out and filled with oppression and irreversible decisions.
@@desnebula5699 your argument dont hold water. The feeling of superiority isnt pervasive in interests, in fact you will often find that people respect other peoples preferences. Whats more, your assertion that black and mexican people only hang out with blacks and mexicans respectively is ignores the fact that interracial friendships and relations, not only exist, but are common. And when people of certain races are only friends with people of the same race its often just because they are surrounded only by people of the same race. In fact, the race of a person is almost never a reason for someone not to become friends with that person. And even if you are correct about that this feeling of superiority is part of human nature, we can still strive as a society to stop it. Taking what you want because you want it is part of human nature(and nature in general), yet thievery is illegal.
Des Nebula you know what else is a form of oppression? Slavery. There’s no way your coming on here defending white supremacy and the CSA with the ammunition of “protecting people from oppression” what a goddamn joke
Robert E Lee specifically said he didn’t believe that there should be any Civil War monuments, especially of himself. He felt they were detrimental to the healing of national wounds.
Robert E. Lee was against building any monuments to the Civil War. Lee said that monuments and statues would just serve to emphasize regional divisions and would interfere with healing the hate the Civil War had caused. Lee was right; we would be better off removing the statues from public places and moving them into museums where their history could be explained in some sort of context.
Lee wanted the money to be given to Confederate veterans instead of statutes that is why he said that if he did. Lee a two-time war veteran earns his monuments. PC people do not know the true LEE. Lee wanted to help ex veterans during hard times like right today hard times.
Dan Rothenhoefer some should be left in place, at least when relevant to the location. If altered. Others should be moved to museums for the sake of actually preserving history
edward clement well let’s not get too crazy.... people always are like “people don’t understand lee! He didn’t like slavery” which is blatantly false. No one knows the true Lee today because he’s dead so that’s kind of a dangerous thin ice to walk on
@Titus Pullo every single southern male would have joined the confederacy? Weird because they had to institute that whole draft thing. A total of roughly 800,000 men served in the Confederate Army out of a population 27 million white adults. Assume 13.5 were male. Now to be excessively fair I'll take the demographics from the modern US and say roughly 10% of the population is fit to fight and military age. Should have a military population of 1.35 million. 800k from 1.35 million is roughly 60%. That's with a draft. Not to mention the average age would have skewed lower then, so your military population would likely be higher than 10%. And that's with the feeling being that their homes were being invaded. Number should be way higher if everyone in the South was such a confederate patriot.
@@AmericanValorPatriot supporting the losers of a war to keep slavery alive is pro American if you think about it because it's in the constitution that slavery is legal so if you don't support the confederates you don't support the constitution and are actually unamerican
Why is this video age restricted? This is factual information that can be verified by anyone with a library card and little bit of curiosity. Children don't need protection from the truth. Racist revisionists are childish, not necessarily children. If they can't handle the criticism, then they can choose to remain ignorant, not block access to this information to anyone who doesn't pass an age test.
So many videos are uploaded that RU-vid uses an algorithm to set this. There is a good possibility it got triggered not by the main subject but rather by the creator using the term "Hitler" a bunch of times.
All over the South you'll see statues of R E Lee and Stonewall Jackson. But one general statue you won't see is James Longstreet. He was reviled by The Lost Cause believers for his beliefs after the war. IE he became a republican who championed civil rights.
good example - another confederate legend that became a republican and was loathed for it was Col John S Mosby of the 43rd batt VA Cav. Awesome guerrilla leader who's tactics are still taught today at the highest levels of the US military!
I think I speak for everyone when I say, we'd like to see you bring the racism meter along in more videos to additional "historical" sites. And perhaps more comically hyperbolic types of meters. Like one for conflicts that starts at "Pitched Battle", "Asymmetric Warfare", "Light Ethnic Cleansing", "Almost Genocide", "The Holocaust".
@@mrosskne they can be used to teach and preserve, but are only there to make those still afected by decade's worth of propaganda to cling to abhorrent and inherently wrong beliefs
Tbh, I like how this guy is honest and doesn't go "anything in the south is horribly racist" or practically a kkk member and is just objectively rating these things and actually doing his research
I mean, as someone from the south, most things in the south are pretty racist, but more in a casual way. I grew up with my dad telling me "I don't hate black people, I just hate n-words" meaning the "ghetto" type of black people or my mom who grew up with horses and a maid and an upper middle class family casually talking about black people on welfare
I mean, he was originally from New Orleans and became a "Heritage not Hate" kind of person when he was younger, before eventually become a major proponent of anti-revisionism for the Civil War.
Señor Hilter which is a real shame because Beauregard did do a lot for white/black relations after the war. And so his statue really should have stayed put
I am an Australian, and we have not had a civil war, we have had wars but not civil ones. But to me it seems with the racial points aside (i'm not denoting those reasons as they are the most important) isn't it weird to have erected statues of people who openly chose to go against America? The confederacy went against Americas values and lead the country to war, so why would you celebrate people who chose to dive America into chaos? just a thought...
So to explain why you have to understand the perspective of the CSA. To them America was built specifically as a white nation state. The 3/5's clause and slavery were enshrined in the constitution as foundational beliefs of the USA. To them the federal government was slowly but surely siding with the abolition movement and soon enough equality of the races would be coded into law. Doing so would invariably break from what they believed America should be. The South saw themselves as the true patriots to American values and the only way to save it was breaking from the Federal Government and the North. After the war the loser still held this idea that they were the true patriots, and so they erected "heroic" monuments to their war dead and The Lost Cause. Unfortunately these ideas of "true patriotism" never subsided in our culture, they just evolved over time to fit radical conservative agendas over the decades following. It's literally what's tearing this country apart again. So uh, hope that helps.
So a lot of white southerners feel a strong sense of regional pride. The confederacy has a lot to do with that, regardless of why the confederacy existed (slavery) it functions as the most significant representation of the south as a region, and thus its something they have pride in. It representing southern culture and heritage is important, but in doing so they either arent taught the truth, minimize the negatives of it, or refuse to accept it. This causes a disconnect between what the confederacy represents to them and what it represents to the rest of the country. It can also represent anti-authoritarian sentiments that a lot of 'small government' people seem to have. Considering the confederacy was created in opposition to the US government, it makes sense that the anti-authoritarian crowd would flock to it, even though the confederacy was anti-US not anti-authoritarian. So you've got anti-authority, regional pride, racism, and a lack of proper education on the topic mixing together and this is the result. Also the south economically sucks and its easy to blame the federal government for it. And the confederacy is an institute very much associated with the southern economy and anger at the federal government.
Another part is the idea that the secession was justified but that the North wouldnt let them leave, and the South was vastly outnumbered but valiantly fought a war they probably couldn't win. This made the leaders into regional heros, which makes statues in particular even harder to deal with. People in the south latched on to these leaders because to them they represent the people who gave them a voice and who embody the region. The county I live in right now is literally named after Robert E Lee. To many here, these guys don't represent traitors who tried to uphold slavery, they represent local heros who tried to protect their land. And the reason for this is subpar education and generationally ingrained bias and bigotry. Let me be clear though. Not all of the South is like this. And you can have regional pride in the south without devoutly supporting the confederacy.
Because America isn't homogeneous, or at least wasn't. We used to have dozens of separate cultures here with their own values and heritage. When you say "American values", are you talking about the Anglo-German middle class of the north? The Gaelic lower class of the south? The German immigrants of Texas? The French aristocrats of Louisiana? When it comes to the civil war, either side could make a case for American values. One side says that authority should be decentralized. The states are semi-sovereign nations which should be able to regulate themselves however they want. The other side says that all men are created equal, and it's the federal government's job to protect human rights. Both of these ideas were espoused in the founding of the nation, but each side picked a different point to focus on.
@@jefftanner690 Robert E Lee actively tried to sue the government to keep hold of slaves that he was contractually obliged by his fathers will to free, he was a slaver piece of shit
@@paschen1791 still a slaver piece of shit, he is basically the same guy as Rommel, a piece of shit racist who gets memorised in popular history as a honourable general
Yeah, my first though was maybe it is to commemorate the African Americans who lost their lives and then he said what it actully was and I was like 0,o
Notice that "ignorant" and "morally questionable" are different labels. There is such thing as innocent ignorance, one could argue. If you simply are unaware of something, ignorant of a fact, that doesn't make you a bad person. Children don't understand the differences of race, and so their lack of understanding, their ignorance through lack of experience is nothing to be looked down upon, for example.
I was mostly a conscientious objector to tearing down statues. But this video gave me some insight into the history and intent of some of the figures and statues in question. Thanks for doing this research.
@@sashakhan4317 you know... We only have the word of the survivors- the white people- to base that charge on. Indeed, it may have happened but then we also know he was a slave, and that without violence, he would have remained so. Regrettable that innocents were killed but far more regrettable thay innocents were enslaved, killed, maimed, raped, bought and sold and ever compelled to kill for their own freedom. The Slavers brought this gruesome fate on themselves and their supposed innocents.
Marshall Phillipe Petain lead the French army during some of the most important battles of WWI. He was probably France's greatest hero from that war. Later, during WWII, he became president of the Vichy Government, the collaborationist puppet government of France after its defeat. After the war, Petain was executed and there are no statues commemorating him. He was a hero, but he became a traitor to France and he's treated as such. Why are the American traitors not treated the same? Why do you feel the need to honour the deeds of treasonous men? That's my question.
Petain wasn't executed because of his status and age: he would be dead anyway (so they thought) unlike Laval who they actually executed. But this is America, some of us really like traitors.
He wasn’t executed he was put in jail because of his old age. And no he wasn’t just any collaborator he as you know was a war hero and his work saved France so no I wouldn’t be totally against a statue to him.
@@nova8091 but I did clearly say that he was a hero. The point is that Petain, who previously WAS a hero, isn't commemorated because he later became a collaborator. While Lee, definitely wasn't a hero before the Civil War, yet is commemorated in statues by the very same country he fought against. I mean, you may as well erect statues to Lord Cornwallis while you're at it.
2:16 That one doesn't seem too bad. 2:54 Oh my, what a horrible event! They should absolutely commemorate those who died and the lawmen who risked their lives restoring order! 3:00 Uhhhh....
All my historical learning is statue-based. I'm congenitally incapable of absorbing information unless it's in statue form. Even recipes and weather forecasts.
i'm sorry the mobs aren't taking your learning disability into consideration. However think of all the good we're doing! without depictions of racist people how will anyone do a racist again? we're literally lynching bad vibes.
Then lets get rid of all statues then? After all, they all have no historic value. Lets get rid of the statue of liberty. Or is "your" history the only history allowed to be presented?
You know, I would understand the statues if they were erected during the civil war, with messages detailing that they were going to stay up in remembrance to a dark time in our nation's history. However, they were not put up during the civil war.
I was at a protest against a Confederate statue in Florida, and this guy came up to me and said, "You wouldn't be here if it wasn't for men like him!" And I was just totally confused by that logic, like how does that even follow?
@@TheJudge_Carls_Junior_Rep yeah it started getting recommended again. Glad to see most commenters using their brains. I was expecting "waaaaaaa erasing histury!!!!!2!1!!"
Not generally a fan of the erasing history argument, but that liberty place monument is so appalling that I actually do want it in a museum. The fact that is stood in a public space for so long speaks volumes and shouldn’t be glossed over and forgotten
To quote John Oliver: "Statues isn't how we remember history, it is how we glorify history." There shouldn't be public statues glorifying the Confederacy. There should be ample information to be found about them, in books and museums etc., which should also provide the context of how awful they were and what they were fighting for.
@@TheTdroid then why did pregnant woman robbing porn actor resisting arrest on 3 times average deadly dose of FENTANYL George Floyd get govt funded statues?
@@rattles8789 Its lack of logical consistency. What I stated about Floyd was correct.but you leftists chalk it up to "his struggle" and never want to address the struggles and mentality of the events in which leftists desire to rewrite the history of
@@AuRowe The irony of you being upset about rewriting history is palpable. Also, not leftist, but I know you likely just use it as a synonym for people that disagree with you, so I'll let it slide.
Great video. The “erasing history” argument is inherently flawed. There aren’t any statues of Hitler or the other Nazis of the Third Reich in Germany, yet Germans have no trouble recalling that extremely dark chapter of their history. There’s a difference between remembering something and glorifying it.
@@Usammityduzntafraidofanythin Nah more cognitive dissonance than anything. Like all peoples they just want to celebrate their culture and the people who fought in their name. But of course whites have been indoctrinated and socially coerced into the belief that any hint of racial solidarity automatically means you are a genocidal maniac and a monster. So of course in order to square the circle they have to come up with convoluted reasons why this isn't really a racial issue.
If anything these "monuments" are what's erasing history. they paint these guys as honorable southern gentlemen out fighting for what was right instead of traitors to the country out trying to preserve the notion of slavery.
I read the Congressional Record for the time leading up to Ft Sumpter. The Southern congressmen talked about two subjects, the right to buy, sell and own human beings and the inherent superiority of whites over blacks. There was no talk of states rights (except for the right to own slaves), no talk of agrarian v industrialized societies, no taxes, no tarries, just slavery.
This was my first atun-shei video. Ngl king, your videos have changed my life. Never doubt the work you do, it’s entertaining, it’s educational, and it’s incredibly well done. I love you with all my homoerotic tension driven heart.
@Emperor They would also protest any Statues of James Longstreet who after the war became a Republican who championed Civil Rights all because he was a confederate general.
A-DrewG It would depend on what the statue commemorated him for. If he was in his confederate battle gear, Yeh it should be torn down. If it was of him as a civilian and recognized his work for Civil Rights, then it should stay. Exactly how many statues of Civil Rights leaders do they have in the South?
"I think it wiser," the retired military leader wrote about a proposed Gettysburg memorial in 1869, "…not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered." -Robert E Lee
Exactly. Lee didn't want a Civil War and had planned to sit it out as a civilian. He turned down Lincoln's request that he lead the Union Army because he didn't want to fight. But he couldn't turn down the Confederacy because he felt he had to support his neighbors and his fellow Virginians.
THOSE WHO DO NOT REMEMBER THEIR HISTORY ARE DOOMED. Lee was speaking of the vengeful and hateful rhetoric of individuals on both sides. HE MOST DEFINATELY WAS NOT SPEAKING OF MARBLE MEMORIALS TO BRAVERY AND SACRIFICE OF MEN WHO GAVE THEIR ALL FOR A JUST CAUSE. Your nonsense interpretation of these words would extend to the tombstones of individual Confederate soldiers.
@@ike3094 Actually, Lee wanted to sit out the war. Lincoln wanted Lee to lead the Union Army and Lee didn't accept Lincoln's appointment. After Lee turned down Lincoln's offer, he was told to pack up his office and get out of Washington, D.C. Lee returned to Arlington. After that, the Virginia State Legislature contacted him and eventually persuaded Lee to fight for the Confederacy. Lee reluctantly agreed to do so because. Lincoln's 75,000 man army was poised to invade Virginia on its path to fighting South Carolina. Remember, South Carolina had seceded in December 1860. Virginia stayed in the Union until April, 1861. Virginia didn't secede until Lincolns troops made it clear that they would invade Virginia
one "Just cause" is debatble. two it was in clear response to one of those said marble memorials . additional for a long time the south did not build any statues to lee due to he refused to allow them to be built in his image.
Do you have evidence to back up these claims? Along with that impoverishment of the south was not due to the "Yankee Thieves" it mostly comes down to a changing economy that led agriculture to be less profitable ,along with that the larges buyer for southern good Britain found a new source for said good in India. UNless you are conisder the freeing of slaves theft.
From the Articles of Confederation: Article I Section 9(4): "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in [black] slaves shall be passed." Paraphrasing: "Members must allow slavery." Remember this the next time someone tells you it was about "state's rights".
To be fair the Articles were scrapped pretty quickly. However, the Constitution recognized slavery as a part of America in its 3/5ths compromise, and it was the free states who went out of their way to ban it, suggesting a state’s right to ban slavery. This argument is furthered by the Dred Scott case, basically making slavery legal in all the US, just not the purchase of slaves.
It would be interesting if these were placed in museums that detailed the racist implications of each of these monuments. This may very well have been done and I am simply unaware of it.
TBH, you'd basically need to *build* a museum exclusively for them because no normal museum is actually going to want them. They are neither particularly old or particularly important. A box of newspapers the same age, taking up the same amount of space, would be *much* more valuable. And unfortunately, basically the only people who care about these things enough to build a museum for them are the people who see nothing wrong with them.
@@iusethisnameformygoogleacc1013 I think it's possible to build one that doesn't glorify the era. There's a Holocaust museum, I wouldn't be against one to keep Americans reminded of the horrors of our history with slavery, the civil war, and whatnot. Granted I'm sure it'd attract neo-Confederates like the Holocaust museum still brings in neo-Nazis, but fuck 'em.
Some food for thought for those who advocate moving memorials/statues/etc. to museums: As a person who works for a museum, I can tell you that storage and display space is at a premium and that artifacts, especially large ones require a lot of effort and money to properly maintain. I'm not arguing against the point to preserve at all--I often agree with it depending on the circumstances--but just be aware that sometimes simple practicality prevents this from being possible. Museums also don't have much incentive to put on display duplicates or similar items, because usually having one prime example is enough to get the point across. A display of ancient pottery, for example, will usually have a collection of items each of which has a unique characteristic or place/time of origin, rather than all be of the same style and the same period/manufacture. There are, of course, exceptions to this, but it's not the norm. A museum might be able to house one statue of Lee, but it wouldn't make sense with the mission statements of most museums to have 15 statues of Lee (all that would have to be maintained and for which space would have to be found). This is why analyses like Atun-Shei's are vital in the discussion of which monuments are preserved and which ones aren't: not only to figure out if and when they should be removed, but whether or not they warrant preservation. In a perfect world museums would have unlimited supplies of space and money, but in this world we have to pick and choose. Knowing the context, history, and novelty of a particular monument helps us make this decision.
In a perfect world, I believe that a handful of these statues should be put into museums to contextualize the white supremacy that is inherent to American history, a subject that I don't believe is covered enough. It baffles me when people defend these statues as a part of Civil War-era history, rather than the more than one hundred years of white supremacy that followed and its legacy that still permeates our society today. In museums, America's history of systemic racism that these monuments commemorate needs to be contextualized in the post-Reconstruction era, the Jim Crow era, and the Civil Rights era. We can't have our history of racial liberation without our history of racial oppression. We must have the balanced historical truths displayed without celebrating the ahistorical revisionism committed by white supremacy. Besides the handful of pristine statues put into context of their respective eras, I believe we're in a perfect position to have the graffitied, vandalized, and righteously broken monuments displayed right next to them to represent our own moment in history. This is what highlights our progress as a society in a space of truth and learning. But other than that, I personally believe the vast majority of the rest of these public statues should be broken down and recycled.
I 100% agree with you. That is why these memorials/statues/etc should be left where they are or destroyed. A statue has no place in a museum. The purpose of a statue is to show the power of the rulers.
@@Apelles42069 The problem with USA public school history classes is that they talk way way too much about "white supremacy" and "Civil Rights", and way too little about things that matter more and give way more insight. But alas public schools are not meant to educate people, they are meant to dstribute state propoganda so thats not gona change.
I live in South Carolina, and I've seen at least 5 confederate museums. I haven't been to all confederate museums, but I have looked into a few, and... they hardly do the time period justice. By that I mean they completely oversell it. It would be nice if some group could just buy out a bunch of (rather small) museums and maybe make a museum that doesn't romanticize everything about it. I think even some of the bad ones should be kept, but perhaps not respected. Maybe make sure a statue of a shithead is dirtied a bit and lays in some dishonorable pose. Whatever they can do to make sure that person is not to be loved. I feel like there should be some sort of preservation of the bad ones just so people know how fucked the confederacy was. Only keeping records of the good people might give the impression the confederacy was good. At the end of the day, though, we don't even need statues for history. They can just be fun to look at, or spark interesting thoughts.
These people can’t see reason. Instead of putting these statues inside of civil war museums or civil rights museums to look upon our past mistakes, they tear them down and vandalize them in a futile attempt to erase history. Some were found to not even be white supremacy symbols.
I don't think people who defend the monuments are racist. I'm not a confederate, I'm a proud yank, yet im sure most of the people who defend the monuments are ignorant, misinformed, and probably dont like the association of the people tearing them down.
"The White League was angry because their man, their candidate for governor in the 1872 election, had lost.... so they stormed into New Orleans... and took control of city hall" Hang on, this sounds familiar.
All you need to know, to know that all of the confederate statues have racist motivations is the fact the only statue you can find of Longstreet is in the North. Why? After the war Longstreet switch parties and supported the newly won civil rights for blacks. In fact he led black militia against the white league in the battle of Liberty place. He was then made a Pariah in the south, and was literally blamed for the confederate loss at Gettysburg (despite the fact....Longstreet advised Lee against, most of his disastrous decisions there).
Thanks for that. Longstreet may not have been the most flashy of the Confederate generals but he was the most grounded in reality. He was also the pillar who supported both Lee in the North and Bragg in the West. He was a total package as shown by his intelligent decision to support a healing of the country.
Longstreet supported slavery and Lee did not. After the war, Longstreet wanted submission the majority of southerners did not and they fought against the radicals and Grant and won and occupation over. Longstreet was great when he followed orders but not when he did not like Gettysburg. He was shot when following Lees's orders at the Wilderness redeeming himself and it looked like a great victory was coming. He was a great corp commander when he followed orders, but as an independent commander not as good Knoxville and New Orleans after war poor performance. Longstreet a military legend like Lee who had a great fault at a time s follow orders, sir.USA USA, not communism.
edward clement Lee very much supported slavery as a “moral necessity for the education of blacks.” Yeah, dang those yankee “radicals” trying to do crazy things like give blacks “rights” and “governmental representation!”
This genuinely astonishes me. I don't doubt that these guys were, on the whole, friendly fellows socially, devoted husbands and fathers, kind to their dogs, etc., etc., but they fought for the "right" to continue to own other human beings and they were traitors to the country of their birth and oaths. Pardoning them to move forward was already kind of iffy... but allowing them to be celebrated? To name ships and forts after them by the government they betrayed?
@@lloydmartelthe south has a great deal of regional pride, which the confederacy represents. Add that to racism, a lack of education, actual secessionist ideology, and the fact that it's seen as anti authoritarian (bc it's anti us). To be clear, Confederate guys aren't really that patriotic. They're more so god guns and the troops conservatives. Low taxes low welfare and they'll be happy. The patriots generally tend more Maga-fascistic.
@@lloydmartel I guess many of these patriots wouldn't want to see them as traitors, or what I believe them to be, terrorists. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that they lost, so in this regard, they were never truly their own people, their own nation, but instead simply a short stint into the more "eccentric" style of American freedom and patriotism.
Kinda pissed me off that protestors tore down a statue of Ulysses S. Grant despite him being a union general and president as well as being one of the main reasons the union took control of the Mississippi River in the civil war
@@TonyBustaroni While I was in Afghanistan I saw part of General Razik's order to murder 1000 Taliban prisoners. The local Afghans thought it was the right thing to do. Because I was there and had experienced that land and culture I understood why it was the right thing to do even if I morally objected to it. - Razik was vilified in the western media. - Vilified by people who weren't there and didn't make the effort to understand. And history will show General Razik, a man Loved by the people of Kandahar for serving his people in the way an Afghan does, as an evil man. - I'm not saying this to justify 10,000 years of blood and pain, nor am I trying to obscure problems we have now. What I am trying to do is break you of your naive notions of right and wrong and surface level moralities. By refusing to take history into context all you're doing is learning pointless trivia, by ignoring the stories you refuse to learn how and why humanity made its mistakes. - Reality is that not all crimes are wrong.
There have been some pretty bad statue removals. There was that of Hans Christian Heg, who wasn't just a fervent activist for abolition, but died in the civil war fighting for the Union. I think he'd deserve a color to the left of "innocent", maybe something like "no, this guy was actually pretty good".
@@TonyBustaroni There are some that are pretty damn much more morally good than others, irrespective of time. Nobody is going to tear down a statue of Maximilian Kolbe - hopefully.
Damn guy I binged your channel and lowkey you changed my mind on a ton of Lost Cause issues. Sad part is that I have a History BA and didn't know most of what I learned on your channel
Don’t listen to razerfish he ain’t got no brains. Mostly historians know a lot about their specific content area and not much else so don’t feel too bad.
90% sure it wasn’t black vote, skeletons and long time corpses overall are pretty white. Get stick bugged That was a meme, i don’t think the dead people’s votes mattered and Bernie would’ve won anyway, but i’m still pretty sure it wasn’t the black vote that tipped the scale.
@@ardenfernandes1763 I mean...it was a bit more than rioting. They wanted to hang Pence. And one person beat a police officer with a fucking American flag. Used the pole to beat a police officer. That's more than rioting.
@@Lord_Pilaf The first track is "Idol Springs" (also known as "Fracture Hills" since the songs are mostly named after the levels they're in) from Spyro 2: Gateway to Glimmer/Ripto's Rage. The second track is "Crystal Glacier" from the same title
Man... it’s one thing to celebrate an act like the battle of liberty place, but to just openly and proudly proclaim it white supremacy, that is just another level
Fun fact, I come from the Wirral (near Liverpool, UK) and my home town is where the CSS Alabama was built. Over in Liverpool a confederate agent by the name of James Bulloch operated during the war, helping to secure arms and supplies for the South (Alabama being his biggest coup) whilst also recruiting local men to serve the cause. He never returned to the US after the war ended, and was buried in a local cemetery. In the 1960s the United daughters of the Confederacy had his grave inscribed with "American by birth, British by choice". His brother Irvine is buried next to him, he commanded the CSS Shenendoah at the end of the war. When he found out it had ended he sailed half way around the globe to surrender to the mayor of Liverpool. I pass the offices where men like Bulloch operated out of every day, they're called after Alabama and Bulloch and have plaques and flags on them. If you're interested I have some photos :)
The liberty place one is so weird compared to the rest... like I don’t like the confederacy, I don’t like the daughters of the confederacy... but for real at least the Lee and Davis statues, though clearly lowkey racist, the Liberty place one literally said “white supremacy” Literally the only way you could defend that still being there (and I say this as a historian) is to make it an important relic from a bygone age, and they should make the adjacent monument a lot bigger
Nothing "low key" about theDaughters of the Confederacy and racism. "Low key" racism is Archie Bunker shushing Meathead when Lionel is visiting. A statue of a treasonous general astride his horse in a fight to keep slavery being unveiled at an all white event in the middle of town is not low key. Seriously.
What's wrong with white supremacy? Seems like whites could make a pretty good claim for it. I think the Japanese and now the Chinese could (and do) make that claim. Why is it so bad? Or do you reflexively say that (same thing as Diversity is our strength) without any reflection?
razerfish racial supremacy has in basically every case caused both a downfall of civilizations and the most cruel and brutal regimes to ever exist. Communist China, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, late antiquity, when societies embrace enlightenment philosophy, liberty above all, equality, fraternity, nationalism, republicanism, anti monarchy and anti imperialism, we have the greatest societies that have ever existed. Ancient Greece laid the foundation by embracing democracy, the US at its founding was the most liberal society on earth at the time, France basically went in the wrong direction and gave radical extremists the reigns, which ended in an aggressive militaristic and imperialistic regime. The US especially is at its best when we don’t support the philosophy “might equals right.” The revolution, war of 1812, Spanish American war, civil war, Cold War, WW1 and 2, etc. We are at our worst when we embrace it. Vietnam, the Native Genocide, the CSA, segregation and Jim Crow, when humanity embraces ideals of suppression of individuals and embrace a shitty collectivist mindset, we end up with Hitler and Stalin and Mao. When we embrace enlightenment and liberty and democracy, we end up with Aristotle, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, JFK. Also racial supremacy, like Communism, usually fails horribly and results in the collapse of the society. Which, is true throughout history. Late antiquity, the European empires, the CSA, Nazi Germany, etc. Basically tyranny and collectivism is fucking retarded and liberty and individualism is cash money
@@Ajaws I agree in principle with your sentiment that we should fully embrace universal human rights, equality and oppose imperialism and oppression, but the way you depict history seems overly simplistic for several reasons. I will focus mainly on antiquity since it's the part of history I study at university: Ancient Greece was composed of slaveholder societies with very distinct social hierarchy. Athen's democracy for instance was only accessible to male citizens with enough money and social status. Ironically the Roman Empire, which is often (and to an extent rightly so) regarded as horribly oppressive was especially in its later days much more liberal and inclusive than ancient Greek poleis. In fact it was after several reforms one of the first political systems in which slaves had a certain amount of rights and a slave owner could be tried for homicide for killing them without reason. This was unheard of in a cultural sphere where it had been formerly considered ius gentium (law of the nations) that slavery existed and that slaves had no personhood and no possession over their own body. Also the Roman Empire conceded a lot of rights to women in comparison to most of ancient Greece, where they were often not even allowed to leave the house. Sparta is an exception in that regard - women had more liberties and rights there, but then again Spartan slaves, the Helots, were among the most oppressed. Athens, often regarded as bastion of democracy today, on the other hand was actually an imperialist power in its own right, subjugating the Delian League (between 150 and 300 coastal city states) and forcing them to pay tribute from inside an alliance of which it was the leader. Aristotle was the personal tutor of Alexander the Great, who proceeded to launch a large-scale military campaign against a large portion of the world known to him. In fact Greek culture, which had originated in splintered city states that valued indipendence, was exported into many territories in imperialist fashion, ironically through the conquest of a Macedonian. Those territories then became Hellenistic successor states, where a culturally Hellenic ruling class oversaw a mainly non-Hellenic populace. Now what am I trying to say with all that? History is complex and in fact many political systems that are considered progressive by many today were in their time riddled with oppression. Sure, ancient Greece and later the Hellenistic world was a focal point of cultural, scientifical and philosophical development, but it was also a place of systemic oppression, imperialism and many many military conflicts. As shown by the Roman Empire and later by the Carolingian Empire and arguably the Mongol Empire many advances in education, technology, jurisdiction, legislation and sometimes even (!) human rights were made in the stability that followed a campaign of brutal conquest. Did you know that Napoleonic conquest actually sweeped away many unjust and outdated features of European judiciary systems? It's called the Napoleonic Code if you want to look it up. Judging a system only by its accomplishments can be a slippery slope, because some systems actually accomplish much while commiting horrible atrocities. I think that a political system should - for the best interest of all its citizens and also non-citizens - be not just successful, but also just. But Justice and equality do guarantee everlasting prosperity, while prosperity alone does not guarantee that it was achieved through justice and equality.
I think it is very poignant to discuss the difference between remembering and glorifying history. Living around Atlanta is actually very strange in terms of this as right outside Atlanta you see streets named after confederates and Stone Mountain as monument to them, but within Atlanta itself you see none of that but instead see statues of civil rights activists and streets named after them. Hell, in the airport there is now a memorial devoted to John Lewis and his life. I honestly feel that it is very interesting to contrast the sentiment of civil rights inside and outside Atlanta for this reason.
You're awesome. More of this. I recently had a long discussion with a Gettysburg historian about the Silent Sam statue at UNC Chaple Hill and a lot of your points echoed my arguments. Keep your historical content coming!
Garett Crook tbh I wish everyone was as smart as you looking at those statues but the problem is most people are not as deep and clear of thought most people are ignorant and stupid and see it as a way to bounce back racism as well as a way to hold on to the past.
@Garett Crook its about national image tho too. Wouldnt it look bad for germany to still have nazi propaganda all over just in public places? Yes, things will always be glorified, but if theyre in a museum, the focus is much more educational than glorification
I mean, yeah, some things have a point here. But why would you argue with a historian who has a degree and has spent years studying against a google search or two?
I took my kids back to Austin where I grew up once. (They were raised in Oregon.) When they read the inscriptions on some of the statues around the state capitol building, their eyes went wide. They were mostly clueless about the continuing depth of the racism in the South, and I realized I'd probably done them a disservice by shielding them from my background / origins.
As a current Austinite I can say most anyone with half a braincell hates those statues, it's just our stupid governor and legislature that want to keep them. A ugly blemish in the city that is Austin.
What the South needed was what the North did not give, time to heal and deal. When the South lost they ended up being subjected to a botched "reconstruction" that managed to take an already poverty stricken South to a darker place entirely. This made resentment stir in many people and very much led to the Lost Cause myth. "If we had won we wouldn't be poor and destitute." or "If we had won my father/brother wouldn't have fought for nothing." Most southerners don't think slavery is good, frankly its only a select few areas that have the deeply ingrained hatred of other races. New Orleans is definitely not one of those areas so why would there be such a struggle when they are removing the confederate monuments? Because to them its the only piece of history they can call truly their own. Taking Slavery away from the south without preparation doomed the southern economy. The North was aptly prepared for it being more industrialized and less urban. When African-Americans were free where do you think they would go for work in the south? To old slave owners who would pay them as little as possible because now these slave owners would either only hire whites or nickel and dime the blacks. This caused the African-American population of the south to be "free" where they were still hated. Then you have northerners who came and bought up land in the south for pennies and dimes because real estate crashed harder than anything we have seen and southerners just couldn't afford anything. Meaning the normal every-day southerner who lost their home to anything would be homeless. Which meant the rich of both sides could exploit the blue collar worker as well as the African-Americans. Not to mention alot of the main areas of trade and wealth managed to get scorched during the war due to either A. The Confederates burnt it down while retreating to make sure the Union didn't get more supplies B. The Union "confiscating" and stealing whatever they could find since they were fighting a war, and war means loot aplenty. (Not to mention what else they did to the remaining families who didn't pick up and leave the area) C. The Confederates themselves steal and confiscate from Confederate families due to them not having the supplies to fight the war any longer. Lots of Confederates needed those new boots for the war effort. (Not to mention what else they did) After a certain point, the war became a crap-shoot and it wasn't brother vs brother but invaders vs random townies who wanted to live in their house which meant near the end of the war, the Union was fighting not only the slavers and racists but regular people who became desperate. They don't get statues or recognized in history but their stories are ingrained just as strongly in the stone of these statues that are being ripped down. A grand memorial for the Confederate dead would be enough for me, just like the memorial for the people in WW2. Its far too late to consolidate and be one people when the schism happened so long ago so a "in general" memorial for the Civil War would be disappointing for southerners. A memorial of Union dead would also be built in a northern city. Statues of Lee and Grant respectively built next to these places. Here's a little tidbit, think about what would happen if people tore down the Lincoln Memorial or any statue of Grant.
Monday's insanity The fuck the south had it pretty hard the North installed a bunch of Radical Republican carpetbaggers who did shit like triple taxes and punish the South if you lets talk about this guys comparison to denazification after WW2 Germany completely banned Nazi symbols after WW2 and if this guy is saying we should have done that with CSA symbols well he obviously doesnt give a shit about the first amendment if there was no first ammendment then theres a good chance the confederate flag would be banned but we cannot due that due to the freedom we have in this wonderful country. Hell the first ammendment is what keeps it legal to fly a Nazi Flag or an ISIS flag
@@Bushdid-hx1zc exactly lol reconstruction failed it was mishandled. Basically its like denazification vs. Treaty of Versailles. When you fuck over the losing party you just make it worse.
Could you return to this series evaluating monuments that might not have to do with the civil war, but should be examined? I think that would be a super interesting series.
I felt like the Robert E. Lee statue was actually innocent. It had the intent of just celebrating the life of one of America's great generals, regardless for if he fought for the Confederacy. It was the people that used it for a different purpose that ruined it. The statue was fine, the people's interpretation around it was not. It's a shame It's torn down, as it could have just gone into a museum or something.
The thing is, memorials are symbols, so even if they were originally intended to be symbols of good things, if people use it as a rallying point, then the meaning of the memorial changes.
Afalstein Kloosterman But would misinterpreting a message change the message itself? Not necessarily. A misinterpretation of intent does not change the original intent. The people that rallied for communism had good intentions. They valued equality over safety and freedom. There's nothing morally wrong with valuing equality. However communism became a very fatal mistake and it was a death sentence for many people. However, people today still rally for communism. The misinterpretation of the original idea did not change the original idea.
You know... as someone who has quite a few Confederate ancestors, and is proud of not their cause, but the bravery they showed in battle, and who is somewhere in the middle on the issue of Confederate Statues, I went into this video expecting just SJW propoganda, but... I was wrong. I surprisingly found myself... AGREEING with every single ranking, and... I tip my hat to you sir, for your fair and honest judgment. I believe it's videos like this that show, while some statues may be should be left up, the VAST majority should be taken down, I think the right thing to do is for every county with a statue should review the history of each statue both before and after it's raising, and have a town hall meeting vote on each one. I think that is the fairest way.
I agree with you. You know I feel bad for people with confederate ancestors because how can you celebrate your ancestor without celebrating what they stood for? It's a hard thing to reckon with but I commend you for at least trying that's more than I can say for many others who had confederate ancestry or are sympathizers.
"monument for the battle of liberty place" Oh okay "where white nationalists battled with the police" Hey that's not bad, a way to remember the brave heroes from the police force! "monument honors the white league as martyrs" MONUMENT HONORS WHAT?
The one Confederate General who did not get a statue, of course, was James Longstreet, Lee's most trusted General, his 2nd in command, and among the 3 Confederates that even President Andrew Johnson said should not receive amnesty because they caused to much trouble to the Union. Despite all that, because he turned around to the point of leading black militia against the white supremacists at the Battle of Liberty Place, they despised him. I think he is the one Confederate General who should have a statue, esp perhaps at Liberty Place.
