Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
August 16, 2017
Smashing Statues, Seeding Strife

In the aftermath of competing protests in Charlottesville a wave of dismantling of Confederate statues is on the rise. Overnight Baltimore took down four Confederate statues. One of these honored Confederate soldiers and sailors, another one Confederate women. Elsewhere statues were toppled or defiled.

The Charlottesville conflict itself was about the intent to dismantle a statue of General Robert E. Lee, a commander of the Confederate forces during the American Civil War. The activist part of the political right protested against the take down, the activist part of the political left protested against those protests. According to a number of witnesses quoted in the LA Times sub-groups on both sides came prepared for and readily engaged in violence.

In 2003 a U.S. military tank pulled down the statue of Saddam Hussein on Firdos Square in Baghdad. Narrowly shot TV picture made it look as if a group of Iraqis were doing this. But they were mere actors within a U.S. propaganda show. Pulling down the statue demonstrated a lack of respect towards those who had fought under, worked for or somewhat supported Saddam Hussein. It helped to incite the resistance against the U.S. occupation.

The right-wing nutters who, under U.S. direction, forcefully toppled the legitimate government of Ukraine pulled down hundreds of the remaining Lenin statues in the country. Veterans who fought under the Soviets in the second world war took this as a sign of disrespect. Others saw this as an attack on their fond memories of better times and protected them. The forceful erasement of history further split the country:

“It’s not like if you go east they want Lenin but if you go west they want to destroy him,” Mr. Gobert said. “These differences don’t only go through geography, they go through generations, through social criteria and economic criteria, through the urban and the rural.”

Statues standing in cities and places are much more than veneration of one person or group. They are symbols, landmarks and fragments of personal memories:

“One guy said he didn’t really care about Lenin, but the statue was at the center of the village and it was the place he kissed his wife for the first time,” Mr. Gobert said. “When the statue went down it was part of his personal history that went away.”

(People had better sex under socialism. Does not Lenin deserves statues if only for helping that along?)

Robert Lee was a brutal man who fought for racism and slavery. But there are few historic figures without fail. Did not George Washington "own" slaves? Did not Lyndon B. Johnson lie about the Gulf of Tonkin incident and launched an unjust huge war against non-white people under false pretense? At least some people will think of that when they see their statues. Should those also be taken down?

As time passes the meaning of a monument changes. While it may have been erected with a certain ideology or concept in mind, the view on it will change over time:

[The Charlottesville statue] was unveiled by Lee’s great-granddaughter at a ceremony in May 1924. As was the custom on these occasions it was accompanied by a parade and speeches. In the dedication address, Lee was celebrated as a hero, who embodied “the moral greatness of the Old South”, and as a proponent of reconciliation between the two sections. The war itself was remembered as a conflict between “interpretations of our Constitution” and between “ideals of democracy.”

The white racists who came to "protect" the statue in Charlottesville will hardly have done so in the name of reconciliation. Nor will those who had come to violently oppose them. Lee was a racist. Those who came to "defend" the statue were mostly "white supremacy" racists. I am all for protesting against them.

But the issue here is bigger. We must not forget that statues have multiple meanings and messages. Lee was also the man who wrote:

What a cruel thing is war: to separate and destroy families and friends, and mar the purest joys and happiness God has granted us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred instead of love for our neighbors, and to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world.

That Lee was a racist does not mean that his statue should be taken down. The park in Charlottesville, in which the statue stands, was recently renamed from Lee Park into Emancipation Park. It makes sense to keep the statue there to reflect on the contrast between it and the new park name. 

Old monuments and statues must not (only) be seen as glorifications within their time. They are reminders of history. With a bit of education they can become valuable occasions of reflection.

George Orwell wrote in his book 1984: “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.” People do not want to be destroyed. They will fight against attempts to do so. Taking down monuments or statues without a very wide consent will split a society. A large part of the U.S. people voted for Trump. One gets the impression that the current wave of statue take downs is seen as well deserved "punishment" for those who voted wrongly – i.e. not for Hillary Clinton. While many Trump voters will dislike statues of Robert Lee, they will understand that dislike the campaign to take them down even more. 

That may be the intend of some people behind the current quarrel. The radicalization on opposing sides may have a purpose. The Trump camp can use it to cover up its plans to further disenfranchise they people. The fake Clintonian "resistance" needs these cultural disputes to cover for its lack of political resistance to Trump's plans.

Anyone who wants to stoke the fires with this issue should be careful what they wish for.

Comments

@karlof l99: i fully agree! That’s why Franklin, when asked what form of government had been made in Philadelphia at the constitutional convention, replied, “a republic, if you can keep it”.
The constitution was written with its own seeds of destruction within. Its primary defense has always been men of good character, which have always been as rare as hen’s teeth.
This, in ny mind, was deliberate

Posted by: woogs | Aug 18 2017 21:12 utc | 201

woogs @201–
“This, in ny [sic] mind, was deliberate[.]”
I’m not 100% certain as to your pronoun reference. Is it “own seeds of destruction” or something else?

Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 18 2017 21:39 utc | 202

@198 woogs.. thanks… i am curious to hear what you or karlof1 think is the way forward here? what has to change? i am stuck on seeing so much in terms of finances and having greater equality in this area is critical to peace..

Posted by: james | Aug 18 2017 22:19 utc | 203

@karlof 202: by that i meant that the constitution is a fragile document easily subverted by those so inclined.
The constitution was a big move away from the articles of confederation. People knew this and also knew that the men in Philadelphia were charged with amending the articles of confederation, not writing an entirely new document.
Thus we had the federalist papers, meant to allay fears of a big central government and build support for ratification. For instance, Madison, in federalist 39, goes on at length about how the limits of government in the new proposed constitution.
The original constitution had no bill of rights, and that is the document that Madison and Hamilton were touting in the federalist papers. Hamilton even went so far as to say that a bill of rights would actually diminish people’s rights!!
Madison, the ‘father of the constitution’, clearly had a change of heart or mind as to what the constitution had wrought. His Virginia resolutions, along with Jefferson’s Kentucky resolutions, attempted to introduce nullification as a check on the federal government.
The resolutions didn’t pass. A decade after the ratification of the constitution, too many already saw the benefits (to them) of big government.
Franklin was right. We had a republic. We just couldn’t keep it.

Posted by: woogs | Aug 18 2017 22:28 utc | 204

Biggest clue that we were being bamboozled from the get-go is found in the preamble to the constitution.
Why in the hell did we need to “form a more perfect union”? How can anything be more perfect than perfect? Is this like better than the bestest?
The ruse is that, by saying ‘more perfect’, you’re giving a nod to the articles of confederation and presenting a veneer of continuity while conducting a seizure of power.

Posted by: woogs | Aug 18 2017 22:48 utc | 205

woogs @204–
Thanks for your clarification. It was openly acknowledged at the time that it contained the seeds needed for dictatorship, which is why Washington was made president.
james @203–
Your simple question has a very complex answer that can be reduced to the need for a new governing document and associated institutions, the enactment of which will be extremely difficult given current balance of powers within the Empire; thus, the complexity. Lincoln said a house divided against itself cannot stand; I cited those words over 20 years ago; and Paul Craig Roberts cited them in his own recent essay. Lincoln was correct, but what neither he nor I or Roberts knew what must now be admitted–Socially, culturally, politically, and economically, the USA will always remain unequal and divided. The only foreseeable remedy is to start over from scratch, which might just occur in 150 years or so thanks to environmental overshoot. A new governing document and institutions will ameliorate inequities somewhat, but the structures that need to change the most are human-based: culture and the society that’s rooted in it. The Machiavellian forces elites have used on our society have made conjuring remedies very difficult–just look at the public and media response to the Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter Movements that are based on easily identifiable and longstanding facts–apathy and worse.
But shouldn’t we try something? The only countervailing power I see possible that might create change is a genuine Progressive-Populist Movement that’s well beyond the sort articulated by Bernie Sanders last year–BUT–it must be genuine: Built from the Grassroots Promoting Peace, Imperial Rollback, Reordering Corporate Charter Priorities, Science-based Regulation, Levels Socioeconomic Inequities, and Legal Accountability, while recognizing the many economic areas that are currently privatized that are Natural Monopolies and ought to be Public Utilities–banking being one.
Sorry for the disjointed answer that barely scratches the surface. A book’s needed to really explore the many dimensions. Best, Karl

Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 18 2017 23:13 utc | 206

@james 203: I honestly don’t know. Original intent of the founders, as faulty as it was, would be a damn sight better than what we have now but I’m afraid that has faded from view.
This whole ‘divide and rule’ that is being played on us currently is not happening in a vacuum. The result of this charlottesville incident and others will be further erosion of our rights. Abroad, our empire is very shaky.
Personally, I’ve been in ‘popcorn mode’ for s while now. Interesting times …..

Posted by: woogs | Aug 18 2017 23:18 utc | 207

@206 karlof1.. thanks.. i kinda figured it would be something along those lines and of course difficult to vision getting their from here, but i like what you have said and i think you are correct to state “the USA will always remain unequal and divided” however discouraging that sounds.. thanks for your many fine posts!

Posted by: james | Aug 18 2017 23:30 utc | 208

@207 woogs… thanks as well! i hear what you are saying and i agree with you too.. interesting times indeed!

Posted by: james | Aug 18 2017 23:31 utc | 209

speaking as a canuck, it is hard to see it working out favourably for us north of the border either.. at this point in time it seems real leadership in the political class is absolutely missing.. no one has much of a vision of where we are, where we are headed or where we could be going.. mostly it seems like the political class are serving the neo-liberal agenda with a lack of imagination of where this leads, let alone a concept of an alternative which could work out differently.. serving the corporations seems to be the number 1 purpose of the politicians today..
meanwhile, i read naomi kleins latest book ‘no’ 2017.. unfortunately though there is some vision, i think it really falls short.. while she doesn’t want to look for scapegoats, trump is used 24/7 in the book.. she admits he is the end result in a long movement to get us here, but her idea on how to move forward sure seems lacking to me… on a different note, i read a book by charles eisenstein – the more beautiful world our hearts know is possible. on the surface it looks like a hippy dippy type book, but in fact it is a lot better book then naomi kleins, although maybe it is unfair to compare the 2!!! i just thought i would mention it as i read these 2 books in the past month, along with a whack of musician bios that i have enjoyed too..

Posted by: james | Aug 18 2017 23:39 utc | 210

quote from today at usa daily press briefing “MS NAUERT: Oh, and I think one would be remiss if they didn’t touch on what had happened in Charlottesville over this past week. And that’s a good reminder for all of us, not just here but Americans serving abroad, that what happened last week in Charlottesville is not representative of America. Yes, we have freedom of speech. Yes, that is something that we embrace. Hatred is not something we embrace. It’s not who we are as a people. That’s not what we want to show overseas. But it reminds us that there is still a battle that can go on internally within our own country, and it’s something that we’re working to address and to try to fix.”
further down ” QUESTION: Well, would it be wrong of us to infer from his remarks that he does not believe that both sides were to blame for last week’s incidents?
MS NAUERT: I have not asked him that question, but I think he was very clear, and I will restate some of this for you. Those who embrace poison in our public discourse, they damage the very country that they claim to love. We condemn racism. We condemn bigotry in all of its forms. Racism is evil. It is antithetical to American values. It’s antithetical to the American idea. So I think the Secretary was clear in his personal beliefs about that.”
https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2017/08/273533.htm

Posted by: james | Aug 19 2017 0:21 utc | 211

V. Arnold @170
Thanks for your attempts to see beyond symbolism. You may appreciate the viewpoint of the following author:
https://charleseisenstein.net/essays/this-is-how-war-begins/

Posted by: Krollchem | Aug 19 2017 0:42 utc | 212

james 210
I had hopes some time ago that Australia was hedging its bet, perhaps jump ship at some stage, but not looking like that now. Five eyes will stay with the ship until it goes down.
The US owns the inteligence establishment of five eyes and they hold the balance of power in politics.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Aug 19 2017 1:12 utc | 213

@213 peter.. yes – stuck with the usa on a rudderless ship essentially.. dang.. when does the wake up call come if ever?

Posted by: james | Aug 19 2017 1:17 utc | 214

Lee was no traitor. In those days, Americans considered their state to be their nation, and Lee would not take up arms against Virginia. Furthermore, the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution actually implies that secession is legal. Abraham Lincoln was guilty of treason by taking up arms against the southern states in contravention to his oath of office.

Posted by: Fidelios Automata | Aug 19 2017 2:38 utc | 215

james @214–
“when does the wake up call come if ever?”
In reality, a great many are awake, even if dazed. What’s lacking is Direction and Solidarity. How to attain them? Look at how it was done before by the Prairie Populists–hard scrabble farmers living in North Texas mid 1870s: The core of what became the Populist Movement that did generate some positive Constitutional changes. Their big advantage vs today is lack of media saturation–no distracted propagandized masses–and much better civic knowledge and involvement of citizenry, plus a populace with shared interests.

Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 19 2017 2:39 utc | 216

Krollchem | Aug 18, 2017 8:42:16 PM | 212
Thanks for the link; a great read and spot on.
I’m actually somewhat familiar with Charles Eisenstein.
It’s appalling how little U.S. history, Usian’s actually know.
Franklin’s reply to the woman (name escapes me) who asked him the question; “A republic, if you can keep it”.; is an example of a very wise and learned man.

Posted by: V. Arnold | Aug 19 2017 4:50 utc | 217

The America Trump thinks is great
But that is the classic defense of neo-Confederate racist thinking. The pretense is that these monuments and other honors are simply a recognition of history when they were clearly intended to glorify the Confederacy and its rebellion against the United States over the Southern fear that slavery would be abolished and the wealth of plantation owners effectively negated.
Most of these monuments were erected in the Twentieth Century, often as symbolic rebukes to progress being made by the descendants of African-American slaves. These were monuments to white supremacy — and for Trump and other white Americans to pretend otherwise is anti-historical nonsense.
Beyond monuments, other public spaces were named after Confederate leaders. For instance, in the 1920s – at the height of the Jim Crow era as lynchings were used to terrorize black communities energized by the return of African-American soldiers from World War I – the Daughters of the Confederacy succeeded in attaching the name of Confederate President Jefferson Davis to sections of Route 1, including in Arlington County, Virginia, near predominately black neighborhoods.
In 1964, as Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement gained passage of a landmark civil rights law, the Virginia legislature added Jefferson Davis’s name to a section of Route 110 that passed by the Pentagon and near Arlington National Cemetery, which was begun in the Civil War to bury dead Union soldiers, including black troops who joined the Army to fight for their freedom.
On Jefferson Davis’s authority, Confederate soldiers were permitted to summarily execute African-American Union soldiers upon their surrender, a practice that was carried out in several notorious massacres, such as at Fort Pillow, Tennessee, on April 12, 1864; the Battle of Poison Springs, Arkansas, in April 1864; and the Battle of the Crater in Virginia. Scores of black prisoners were executed in Saltville, Virginia, on Oct. 2, 1864. It should be noted that the Confederate troops of Virginia were under the command of the esteemed Gen. Robert E. Lee.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47643.htm

Posted by: Rodger | Aug 19 2017 5:17 utc | 218

@216 karlof1…i agree with you.. i think things have to get worse for more people to get involved in upending the system we have going here.

Posted by: james | Aug 19 2017 6:38 utc | 219

212 krollchem / 217 v. arnold… krollchem – was that just a coincidence your posting a link to a charles eisenstein article, while i had posted a link to the book i had just read of his @ 210 that i was recommending?? funny how coincidences like that happen if so!!!

Posted by: james | Aug 19 2017 6:42 utc | 220

james | Aug 19, 2017 2:42:21 AM | 220
Dunno; wait for krollchem to chime in. I completely missed your link to Eisenstein’s book, sorry.

Posted by: V. Arnold | Aug 19 2017 7:36 utc | 221

@198 woogs my thoughts drifted along similar lines today. I probably can’t state it as well, but writing it out helps me unwind.
The US Civil War was fought over slavery. But it was not fought over slavery as a moral issue. Rather, slavery was first an economic issue and thus a political issue. In other words, the war was fought over slavery, but it was not fought over racism. As you point out, racial attitudes of the North closely matched those of the South. The consensus moral opinion on both sides was that the black man was inferior to the white man, full stop, end of discussion. The North’s victory did not change this widespread conviction.
The only group who did fight against racism were the Abolitionists. But in modern parlance, these people were viewed as “fanatical religious fundie nutjobs” and considered a real threat to social stability. You mention John Brown. John Brown was not only a “fundie nutjob”, he was also a “terrorist”.
Was John Brown a righteous, “anti-racist” Abolitionist? Or was he a vicious, murdering, “fundie nutjob” terrorist? Was he good, or was he bad? Anyone that is able to hold complex ideas in their head can understand that he was all these things, that he was both good and bad. But to try to equate “John Brown” to a simplistic “good” or “bad” requires ignoring one half or the other of the reality of who he was and what he did. He refuses to be reduced to a simple symbol of “tolerance” or “terrorism”, as head-scratching in death as he was in life. There’s a reason why everyone knows the words to Battle Hymn of the Republic and no one knows the words to John Brown’s Body.

Posted by: Jim S | Aug 19 2017 9:08 utc | 222

Jim S | Aug 19, 2017 5:08:53 AM | 222
The US Civil War was fought over slavery.
No, no, no, it wasn’t; get it right!
It was about state’s rights; slavery was a sub issue.
This myth; The US Civil War was fought over slavery, must die in the name of genuine U.S. history.
It’s important damnit!!!

Posted by: V. Arnold | Aug 19 2017 9:22 utc | 223

@V. Arnold I do realize I’m neglecting the very relevant discussion on the right to secession and the nature of the Union as it was conceived and understood. But on the practical side, slavery was the economic engine of the South and thus tied to Southern political power. Can slavery’s economic implications be extricated from the political so easily?

Posted by: Jim S | Aug 19 2017 10:07 utc | 224

That is to say, the South had to defend slavery in order to maintain the balance of political power.

Posted by: Jim S | Aug 19 2017 10:20 utc | 225

The Thirty Year war was a deadly religious war in Europe. 1618 – 1648 The peace treaty that followed was signed October 24th 1648. The Holy Roman Empire lands would be carved up. This treaty is the birthplace of the Nation-State idea. This notion was designed to end religious wars in Europe. The population of the Holy Roman Empire would be required to switch their devotion to this new entity, Nation. Devotion by singing glorious hymns about this entity. Giving your life for this new thing. Would be the most supreme act.
Some people got carried away with the devotion thing. Excessive devotion towards a Nation is called Nationalism.
These monuments are part of the Nation State apparatus.

Posted by: @Madderhatter67 | Aug 19 2017 17:40 utc | 226