5 ms·

+1 for it being nuanced, after moving to the south it really was not clear how much this is true. The statue was the embodiment of a heritage / culture. There w

+1 for it being nuanced, after moving to the south it really was not clear how much this is true. The statue was the embodiment of a heritage / culture. There were bad parts of that culture, but so is there in every culture. However, rarely do we support obliterating other cultures. I'm going to walk through the logic of the people I've met in the south (not necessarily my own opinions). The south was under military occupation for years after the civil war. The north sent teachers from the north to "re-educate" the south. Many of the farms were destroyed and unmaintainable due to the war, deaths, famines, and removal of slaves. Many southerners were not allowed to hold office until there was a pardon issued. They almost had a second civil war in 1877 due to a disputed election - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1877 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1877 Part of the compromise on the 1877 disputed election was that they removed "reconstruction". In many ways, the south felt a genocide was committed. Their culture, society, wealth, etc was taken from them. We can argue it was justice due to them holding slaves or rebelling, but they left the union peacefully in their minds and wanted to be left alone. Fast forward to today -- the US government has consistently regulated every primary export of the south (intentionally or otherwise). Cotton, alcohol, tobacco, coal, oil, etc have all been systematically regulated. I've witnessed first hand the large swaths of the south that had their communities destroyed by these regulations (most of them). Further, their state governments constantly derided for the last 150 years. Opioids and obesity are also much more impactful (imo unrelated to the government) in the south the opioid epidemic (which is still raging) completely decimated the communities. The dispensary rates are also WAY higher in former confederate states than anywhere else. https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/rxrate-maps/index.html https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/rxrate-maps/index.html When you combine massive regulation, loss of jobs, obesity, etc it's clear why many southerners look to their heritage when they once had pride in their community, state, country, etc. At the end of the day, the people of the south have slowly seen their culture collapse over the decades and the melting of the statue was kind of the death of it. The burning of their institutions, melting of their statues, and erasure from the history books.

techdmn 3y ago
It seems a little crass to say "it felt like a genocide" considering the horrors of slavery. Similar thoughts regarding erasure from history, given the amount of controversy around whether or not schools should be able to discuss the horrors of slavery.
- fsloth 3y ago
  ”Genocide” does not mean simply killing, the full definition is broader that. The definition includes ”genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: … (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;” I.e. just eradicating a national identity from a group of people suffices. This is the main reason Ukraine can be considered a genocidal war, for example, to eradicate the Ukrainan state and identity. Similarly it’s not implausible to view the reconstruction period as an attempt to do some culture- and state eradication in the slaver states. Nobody is defending the horrors of slavery. But, state institutions were demolished, a specific cultural identity was attempted to be eradicated. I’ve never visited US south of Colorado but just by reading about it the feeling of genocide comes strong. World is not black or white. Was eradicating the institution of slavery right? Hell yes. Was it right to attempt a bit of genocide on the side? I have personally no frigging clue. I do know it took to 1960’s to complete the process of allowing full citizenship rights with civil rights movement so clearly some things had to settle for over a century. To maintain rule based order we must be committed to view events via the same objective interpretation. The same north-led US was pretty good in genociding the native american nations decades the civil war ended. Just achieving one good thing (ending slavery) does not give a state free pass on all the other things. We (as the western world) try to improve by admitting our failures and trying to do better. This requires first admitting fallibility, and naming things correctly. The current zeitgeist tries to view the world via the infantile manichean lens of victimhood (of pure goodness) and oppression (pure evil). This is a very narrow ethical model, and seldom applicable towars any beneficial goal. Things are complicated. The same state that fought and bled to end slavery also committed multiple genocides during the same historical period. Was reconstruction period an actual genocide? Probably not. Did it use the same methods one would use to implement change that can be categorized as genocide? I’m pretty sure, yes. A point I would like to be argued: I guess it' fair to say that From point of eradicating culture, melting Lee's statue would be comparable to melting a statue of Sitting Bull. Both are representatives of hostile nations towards US, both of which were eradicated. But are there any arguments against this point of view? [0] https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitting_Bull https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitting_Bull
selimthegrim 3y ago
Half of the military, military installations, and supply chain are all in the South (I live in New Orleans) Some conspiracy.

techdmn 3y ago

It seems a little crass to say "it felt like a genocide" considering the horrors of slavery. Similar thoughts regarding erasure from history, given the amount of controversy around whether or not schools should be able to discuss the horrors of slavery.

fsloth 3y ago
”Genocide” does not mean simply killing, the full definition is broader that. The definition includes ”genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: … (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;” I.e. just eradicating a national identity from a group of people suffices. This is the main reason Ukraine can be considered a genocidal war, for example, to eradicate the Ukrainan state and identity. Similarly it’s not implausible to view the reconstruction period as an attempt to do some culture- and state eradication in the slaver states. Nobody is defending the horrors of slavery. But, state institutions were demolished, a specific cultural identity was attempted to be eradicated. I’ve never visited US south of Colorado but just by reading about it the feeling of genocide comes strong. World is not black or white. Was eradicating the institution of slavery right? Hell yes. Was it right to attempt a bit of genocide on the side? I have personally no frigging clue. I do know it took to 1960’s to complete the process of allowing full citizenship rights with civil rights movement so clearly some things had to settle for over a century. To maintain rule based order we must be committed to view events via the same objective interpretation. The same north-led US was pretty good in genociding the native american nations decades the civil war ended. Just achieving one good thing (ending slavery) does not give a state free pass on all the other things. We (as the western world) try to improve by admitting our failures and trying to do better. This requires first admitting fallibility, and naming things correctly. The current zeitgeist tries to view the world via the infantile manichean lens of victimhood (of pure goodness) and oppression (pure evil). This is a very narrow ethical model, and seldom applicable towars any beneficial goal. Things are complicated. The same state that fought and bled to end slavery also committed multiple genocides during the same historical period. Was reconstruction period an actual genocide? Probably not. Did it use the same methods one would use to implement change that can be categorized as genocide? I’m pretty sure, yes. A point I would like to be argued: I guess it' fair to say that From point of eradicating culture, melting Lee's statue would be comparable to melting a statue of Sitting Bull. Both are representatives of hostile nations towards US, both of which were eradicated. But are there any arguments against this point of view? [0] https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention%20on%20the%20Prevention%20and%20Punishment%20of%20the%20Crime%20of%20Genocide.pdf https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitting_Bull https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitting_Bull

selimthegrim 3y ago

Half of the military, military installations, and supply chain are all in the South (I live in New Orleans) Some conspiracy.