I'm from and was educated in Texas and every year it was emphasized to us on our state standardized tests that the cause of the civil war was state's rights and that the emancipation proclamation was made just to make the south allied France think the war was about slavery. Every single year we took a standardized history test we were told this was the right answer. It wasn't until college I even heard about the lost cause of the south and basically had to relearn the civil war chapters of history. It's insidious and doesn't surprise me that so many southerners really believe that when it's literally fed to us through out state mandated curriculum
The "state's rights" line is insidious because it's not incorrect, but it's not the whole story at the same time. It was about state's rights. To have slavery in their territory. The Confederate leadership made this very clear in their own writings and even their independence documents. The Civil War didn't start over the abolition of slavery, but it certainly ended up being about it. Also, the North did capitalize on emphasizing the role of abolishing slavery in the war to European nations, mostly Russia.
Your name is Cordova, of source you don't agree with Southern history. Lastly, university and college hardly teach unbiased history either. Both aren't even close to Oxford university guide lines, which is also falling pray to retarded Libbie " corrections" of history.
And that's why people don't think much of college. Lincoln himself admitted that the proclamation was a political measure, and stated clearly that if he could win the war without freeing a single slave he would do so.
@@magnusprime10 Hahahaha getting fed a bunch of drivel about how history proves civilization and freedom are evil is "reading and learning about history." Shut up yourself.
Matthew Chenault Nice strawman. Did you actually watch the video you linked to? I did. Never once did they say that the air was racist. They pointed out that predominantly African-American and poor neighborhoods have been disproportionately ignored when places in their communities contaminate the air, and the lack of government... care-ness for lack of a better term (I’m sorry I just woke up from a nap) leads to these communities being more affected by things that are a danger to all Americans. Now, you could argue that the title does utilize identity politics in assuming that the reason these communities have been ignored is because of race and not social class, but either way, it’s hardly “down the rabbit hole” or nearly as bad as you are saying.
99% of the time Rogan doesn't impress or have a coherent argument. But that remaining 1% of the time? He can really knock it out and surprise you. He's like a dementia patient that, once a year, does some calculus equations.
The US soldiers at the end of world war II destroyed pretty much any Nazi and Hitler iconography they could get their hands on, yet we still know who he is and the atrocities he committed. If these people really did care about history accuracy, maybe they should criticize the military they worship
@Achilleskneel What Values can these statues ever represent, but Slavery, what "noble" cause do you think you're referring to? - Nothing! And there's a reason we admire the Greeks for thinking, but not what they thought then, a reason we don't use their texts of the times as Guides.
@Achilleskneel Both sides may feel equally righteous, but are they really? All soldiers in every war are told they are defending their country, what matters is what their country stands for. I as a German will not cry for a killed Nazi and I do not care if those men died thinking themselves brave and righteous, what matters is if they're right, they weren't. And if by ulterior motive you mean "not paying for symbols of oppression" that's a pretty good motive in my eyes
@Achilleskneel Do you enslave people because they don't speak Greek or Egyptian, also when did I say the Union were the villains... I don't remember that part And I notice you've left open what the Statues are supposed to mean other than slavery
@Achilleskneel 1) Hardly Wisdom when every 2nd one of you spits out the "defending their home argument" 2) Three arrows actually explained that in the video, regarding the statues in public spaces being maintained with > Taxpayer money < 3) What if they're removing the statues because they should never have gone up in the first place? 4) Even people were removing them to make themselves feel better, is that any argument to leave statues to people who fought for slavery?
@Achilleskneel The Venn diagram of People who want the statues to stay and "Lost Cause" supporters is not too dissimilar to a circle It seems you're claiming those protestors are fakes, with that 'Bused in' comment, is that what you're saying?
Removing a statue doesn’t erase or change history. People arent suddenly going to forget the civil war simply because there is no longer a statue of Lee.
Exactly, people don't think logically. The point is that these statues do often have racist origins with how they were erected in protest of the second reconstruction.
One Confederate general you rarely hear about from a lot of these people trying to glorify the confederacy is James Longstreet (you actually showed a picture of him, but that's really one of the only statues in existence, and it's on the battlefield in Gettysburg in Union territory, not in a southern town square). He was, in many war historian's opinion, one of if not the best military mind of the Civil War. He was at least a major reason why the rebellion lasted as long as it did, and played a key role in many battles. Yet, Longstreet is not talked about among neoconfederates, and it's easy to see why. After the war, he largely reversed his position that the Civil War was justified and accepted defeat, basically admitting the whole thing was a mistake. Many southern (hate) groups throughout history openly talked about how he should not be memorialized because he was inconvenient to their Lost Cause narrative. And to me that's all the proof you need that these statues are not memorializing history (whatever that means) or memorializing the great military minds and personalities in the war, because if that were the case, he would have just as many, if not more, statues and memorials than someone like Stonewall Jackson. It was all about racial and societal ideology at the time, trying to rewrite history.
Stuart has a rather large statue in Richmond, and the only mar on his legacy is that he made a real mistake during Gettysburg (something Lee forced the Confederates into even though it was a stupid idea). Longstreet in reality made no big mistakes, and Confederate-friendly historians made up stuff about him to tar his legacy, and to this day there's almost no statues or commemorations of him outside his hometown. This is undoubtedly because he supported the Republican Party after the war and supported the freedom of blacks: "Authors espousing the Lost Cause attacked Longstreet's war career for many years after his death. Modern authors trace that criticism to Longstreet's acceptance of the defeat and accommodations both with the Republican party and freed blacks. The attacks formally began on January 19, 1872, the anniversary of Lee's birth and less than two years after Lee died. Jubal Early, in a speech at Washington College, exonerated Lee for the defeat at Gettysburg and falsely accused Longstreet of having attacked late on the second day and of being responsible for the debacle on the third. The following year, William N. Pendleton, Lee's artillery chief, claimed in the same venue that Longstreet disobeyed an explicit order to attack at sunrise on July 2. Both allegations were fabrications; however, Longstreet failed to challenge them publicly until 1875. The delay damaged his reputation, as the Lost Cause mythology had now taken hold. Longstreet's former subordinate Col. John S. Mosby defended his commander, and other former Confederates who joined the Republican Party were subjected to similar criticism, including Gen. William Mahone and Robert W. Flournoy. A "reconstructed rebel", Longstreet embraced equal rights for blacks, unification of the nation, and Reconstruction. After Longstreet died, his widow Helen Dortch Longstreet, privately published Lee and Longstreet at High Tide in his defense and stated that "the South was seditiously taught to believe that the Federal Victory was wholly the fortuitous outcome of the culpable disobedience of General Longstreet."" I don't know why a "tragic" figure would be exempted from having statues made of him like all the rest. The fact is, when they were making many of these statues in the early 1900s, southerners hated Longstreet for being anti-Confederate after the war and told lies about how he disobeyed the Perfect God Lee's orders, even though Lee was the real reason they lost the war, if the war was ever winnable to begin with.
This is entirely correct. His name was mud because he joined Grants administration at one point even commanded black soldiers during Reconstruction. The new south saw him as a traitor to the cause. So it's kinda obvious the statutes are not about celebrating history or great leaders if they purposely excluded an intelligent military officer.
hentropy, I find your post interesting and would request you to read mine posted here as well. I come to the opposite conclusion though we both make good points.
@Matthew Chenault A few things here: 1) Statues are easy to destroy, both physically (sledgehammers, ground tethers, and gravity) and chemically (dependant on the material used for creation of the statue). 2) While books can be burned, the manuscripts and publishing of the books still exists. The statue exists as its own entity that isn't as recreatable as a book. 3) The OP never said that quote was true. They merely attributed it and put it in the comments. 4) The weird living flesh and meat that generates an argument or quote doesn't automatically discredit the point being made. If it did, many reactionaries with easily debunked claims would never need more than 1 response video against them. 5) The destructibility of a medium does not change its message. 6) I genuinely don't know what you hope to accomplish after over a year of coming back to this comments section besides fishing for poorly worded responses among the well-reasoned ones you've received, or upping the overall comment count for this video, in which case you're helping the video in the TH-cam algorithm.
Statues give literally zero context. They're just a representation of a person, maybe with a brief plaque, that will tell you next to nothing other than that they're revered for some reason or other. Anyways, let's up go put up statues of Hitler and Pol Pot so we don't forget about their atrocities, except wait, at that point we'll just have glorified genocidal maniacs.
@Matthew Chenault Do you not know of the Iliad? It's a story from Roman times that is essentially the Roman Odyssey. The Iliad was never a monument or construction. Aeneas's writings are still known, whereas many ruins are lost. On your point of the Egyptians: the Rosetta Stone was extremely helpful in translating the language. Had we lacked any record of communication between Egyptians and Greeks, translating would have been harder. However, language analysis exists on languages we haven't fully translated or understood simply because of patterns common among languages that exist in writing. To claim I am "a truly evil person" is simply rude; you've not met me, nor do you understand my motivations. I don't seek to destroy things, as I agree with preserving historical structures and monuments. However, those monuments aren't always appropriate for a public space. Books are able to contextualize things, cites sources, and give a view on the events described, whether or not the depiction is accurate. Statues do not provide context. To make things abstract for a moment, imagine a person with a full understanding of the English language and no understanding of history. What do you think a statue of Jefferson Davis says to them? If it is publicly displayed, that implies they are worthy of some form of honor. The Constitution of the Confederacy grants much more context as to why the Confederate States came to be than the structures made decades after their time. For the record, a mention of Hitler in an argument is not called reductum ad hitlerum, but Godwin's Law. You would also be using the wrong Latin gender suffix and case for Hitler.
@@Mark-the-Raider I know this is from 3 months ago but The Iliad was not Roman but Greek, attributed to Homer, and tells the story of Agemmemnon and Achilles during the Trojan War. The Odyssey, also attributed to Homer, is the story of the ten year voyage of Odysseus' return home to Ithaca. I believe you may have combined The Iliad and Virgil's The Aeneid, the story of the Trojan Aeneas who travelled to Italy and became the ancestor of the Romans.
@@pootis4986 give a news source or something at least? Last time I checked no one cares about Dr. Seuss except for the Seuss company and right-wingers Also Dr. Seuss doesn’t have historical texts. They’re children’s books. So you are doubly wrong
The marxism understander has logged on, it seems. I know you'll never agree that you're wrong because your user name is Augusto Pinochet, but i'll try to reason with you even though I know I'll regret it later. You are the one who doesn't understand marxism (or methodologies in general, for that matter) Erasing history has been around since before Marx had even been born. The romans had this thing called Damnatio memoriae, where they literally erased someone from history, or tried to do it, we also have the example of people who deny the Armenian Genocide, people who claim that the USA won the Vietnam war, or the Holocaust deniers who do try to erase parts of their history, none of them are marxist in any sense, so even if erasing history were a marxist concepto (which is not) that wouldn't mean that every erasure of history ever would be marxist, because other do that too (even though marxist don't, in reality, but please bear with me). In order to demonstrate that erasing history is marxist, you'd have to either, explain how every instance of doing it is marxist or to point out any specific element in marxism that suggests doing it. Now, according to marxism, there's a thing called superstructure, which is dependent on the structure. The structure is economical, so changing it would also change the superstructure, which is where our current narrative of history and tradition lie, so, that sentence you wrote "You have to deconstruct every aspect of the current capitalist system to replace it with true communism" is kinda true, but once you understand marxism (which you don't) you realize that doing that doesn't require to erase history. Finally, let's talk about the Great Leap Forward. I'm going to be lenient with the fact that you're probably confused with the Cultural Revolution and you referred to the latter and tell you that it wasn't an attempt to to erase history, it was an attempt to get rid of bourgeoise elements present in the culture of China IN THE PRESENT and to also finish with some of the remaining elements of traditional Chinese culture that according to chairman Mao interfered with the revolution. This has nothing to do with erasing history, since it isn't denying that certain events or things happened, but rather a prohibition against continuing doing such actions on the basis that they were harmful, wether you agree or disagree with Mao (I disagree, btw, since I do consider those would've naturally changed once capitalism had been overcome) you cannot compare his actions and goals with the erasure of history. Erasure of history is to pretend something didn't happen or to deliberately destroy it to make people forget about it and to prevent history from recording it. And well, even if the Cultural Revolution were an example of erasing history, it still wouldn't proof that erasure of history is a marxist concept, because China was the only example you can cherry pick of this being done, when there were lots of other marxist countries that didn't do it at all, that is a logical fallacy. China's supposed erasure of history (that didn't happen, BTW) is so valid an example of erasure of history being marxist as Stalin's bringing up the images of the old tsars during World War 2 to inspire soviet soldiers is an example of it not being marxist at all. I hope you've understood you're wrong. I recommend further reading on marxism.
"I know you'll never agree that you're wrong because your user name is Augusto Pinochet" I am sure he'll never agree with you because he somehow counts history as part of a CURRENT system; this level of inconsistency betrays a strong faith, logic won't work here.
Augusto, you seem to be implying that when after the breakup of USSR the new states started removing statues of communist functionaries (such as Lenin and Dzerzhinsky) and getting rid of many communist inspired city names (Stalingrad, Leningrad, etc.), they were actually doing something... Marxist?
Дмитрий Грязнов It's not about agreeing with me or not doing so. It's about the facts. And, well, the fact that his username is "Augusto Pinochet" shows how biased he is, so it's pretty much the reason he won't accept he's wrong.
Jason Mckibbin Vendor: tomatoes tomatoes 1$ normal 2$ rotten Milhouse: ooh ooh, dad, can i get a rotten one Kirk: do you really need a rotten one? I mean its not like you are actually going to hit him *milhouse smiles in anticipation
Not to mention, what would be the point of filling up a museum with statues of the same three people. "Here's an equestrian statue of Lee, and another equestrian statue of Lee, and another one, here's one of him holding his hat, here's one with a sword..."
The vast majority of the statues should just be destroyed. A few of them I can see be put in a museum, but the rest are cheaply made and serve zero purpose in any context.
@@LadyTylerBioRodriguez Not the same, but most ideologies build on the framework of previous ideas and concepts. And I think what they're suggesting is not that Marxism and Fascism are the same but that both can be totalitarian in nature.
He did the same thing when they discussed regulations. “Well I’m not saying get rid of all regulations, but we should get rid of all regulations. Govmint bad, corporations good.”
The black conservative guy debated Destiny a few days ago and was essentially denying the racist history of the US, he argued against stuff like redlining and talked positively about the KKK and how they actually were nice people because they gave his grandmother presents and gifts. He's literally the parody version of all the Dave chappelle skits about right wing black people.
Wasn't that Anthony Brian Logan? I've never really looked into him but generally I find that black conservatives are some of the most nutty human beings around. Examples include Elmer Williams and Pastor Manning.
Kris Handsome the funny part about them is even when the right demonizes African Americans they still think they are not the ones getting the disrespect because they are conservatives like the right wingers lol. Classic Stockholm syndrome.
Ursus Americanus The confederacy was literally an enemy to the united states. Just because they were our neighbors doesn't mean that they weren't the opposing side of, yknow, a war?
Best line: "Ruben's political ideology seems to be that he hates SJWs so much that he began to believe in trickle down economics at some point." Pretty damn accurate.
Well, quite easy to take sides in matters outside of your own culture, and even more so, if your stance is in line with german state propaganda. I. e. his whitewashing of prussian antisemitism is one of the traditional traits of the empires who fought against the french republic throughout the 19th century and two world wars. So this pseudoleft channel is basically a far right reactionary spewing revisionist bullshit and trying to mock the united states as a whole, although that's not what it looks like at first glance.
You see because, Germany acknowledges the holocaust, and how bad it was. They are now cowards because they know something in their history that doesn't make them feel pride. This has resulted in them wanting to destroy their skin color, cause reasons, and The JEEEEWs are involved somehow, cause reasons.
2manynegativewaves I’m pro gay rights, mainly because I think regulations on things that don’t hurt people are retarded. Almost as retarded as thinking calling stuff gay isn’t funny.
Belgium is only rich today because of what Leopold did. If it weren't for him Belgium would be as poor as Ukraine is today. You should be thanking him.
6 ปีที่แล้ว +6
@@enclaveradioman6513 Shut the fuck up you dumb animal.
When Ukraine tore down Stalinist iconography a few years ago, were they erasing their own history? No. They were removing Stalinist iconography. When we remove Confederate monuments, we are not erasing history, we are removing Confederate iconography.
Kind of ironic really considering that Lee himself wanted no statues to himself or any other Confederate personalities erected anywhere and that when asked about flying the Confederate Battle Flag he answered, quote: "Fold it up and put it away."
Bruh he sounds like he really did not want to fight for the CSA which confuses me that if he’s really not that loyal to the Confederates then why fight for them?
Here's a solution: Add a statue of Lebron James dunking on all of the Confederate leaders. Honestly, it wouldn't even help that much, but it would be fun. The alt-right would have a collective seizure.
White Southerner here*. I’m also a dreaded marxist-leninist, one who’s even read the dastardly writings of the white-hating Black Panthers! At least, that’s what I was raised to believe. There’s a lot of complicated history here that is simply ignored. 14% of my state voted for Eugene V Debs, the self proclaimed American Bolshevik, who spent time in prison for his vocal opposition to World War 1 and for agitating for revolution. However, you wouldn’t know that reading current Louisiana History textbooks. You also won’t learn that the anarchist Industrial Workers of the World organized one of the first interracial unions here, that the Knights of Labor organized an interracial union in my hometown with a 10,000 strong strike that was put down by white militia killing anywhere from dozens to hundreds of people in the Thibodaux Massacre. You probably won’t hear about the utopian socialist colony of New Llano, although the town with that name is still there. You won’t hear about the 1930s strike of fishermen, utilizing armed resistance over low prices for catches, although a documentary was produced in the 1970s entitled “Huit Pieces et Demi!” which was the strikers’ slogan. You will maybe hear about slave rebellions, like the 1811 German Coast Uprising. But where are the statues and plaques to commemorate this history? The bus boycott tactic made famous by Rosa Parks originated in Baton Rouge. The New Orleans Black Panthers were ambushed and shot up by a police raid. Three Panthers spent 30 years in solitary confinement after this raid, first arrested for defending themselves from the police, and then framed for the murder of a guard, really they were punished for daring to organize an end to prison violence and racial gangs to unite the prisoners. None of this history is commemorated and it’s hardly ever discussed. Any resistance to exploitation or racism is hidden, for obvious reasons, especially if the resistance broke down racial walls. This is the real revisionism. And it damages the psyche of poor and working people of all races and nations. It makes racism seem universal, hegemonic, and inevitable. It makes exploitation seem natural, inescapable, even if you hate it. *I’m actually a Cajun-Creole, a group of people that hardly enlisted to fight in the Civil War, and had an extremely high desertion rate. We saw the war as “an American problem.” We didn’t really think of ourselves as American until sometime after World War 2, with forced Americanization and proletarianization. This doesn’t mean we didn’t and don’t have problems with racism and white supremacy. It does mean that for us to stop being “white n****ers,” as Anglos called us, French and Spanish had to be beaten out of us. The US oil companies feared violent resistance to the necessary despoliation of the land in service of the oil industry, and finally sought to proletarianize and Americanize us to avoid this after neglecting us for almost 100 years.
GL1TT3R _ 666 Is there any good books I can about any of the topics you wrote about? Or any good places to find this information? I've never heard about any of this and you've sparked my curiosity.
Public discourse in the United States has lurched so far to the right that I've even starting seeing this: "Democracy = Communism". We went from "Socialism = Communism" to "Liberalism = Communism" to "Progressivism = Communism"...so I guess it was just a matter of time before democracy itself was equated to communism.
One really starts to wonder how the US ever got a democratic country in the first place. I mean: There is this other Three Arrows video, where he lashes out against Steven Crowder calling Hitler a democrat or "left-wing socialist".
Your first claim is ridiculous. 3-arrows consistently lashes out at Crowder--not "calmly explain[ing]" anything but spewing a consistent stream of slander. In addition, Crowder wasn't wrong; Hitler was very much a socialist. Amusingly, Fermin asks just how the US ever got a democratic country in the first place--the answer is by shooting people like 3 Arrows. Second, since I pointed out what wasn't seen, it's fairly clear that I was referring to the OP's claim that he's seeing "Democracy=Communism." Nobody is claiming that, and nobody is equating democracy to capitalism, and he has not seen it. The very idea that our country is lurching to the right is one of the dumbest I've ever seen--and seeing as this comment section is full of internet communists, that's saying something. Imagine a Democrat Party 20 years ago, or 30, or 50, that's more than 50% socialist. Imagine any Democrat in either of those times proclaiming that Christians should be jailed or sentenced to re-education for refusing to mock God. Imagine the Republican party moving to the right as we went from Reagan to "No New Taxes" Bush to Dole (who proclaimed that Reagan could never get elected becuase he was too conservative!) to amnesty-and-medicare Bush, to McCain and Romney. Mr. MacIntyre's statement is blant bullshit, and the conclusion he lied to support is flat-out gaslighting.
I've watched the video you are referring to, and never once did 3 Arrows ever lash out angrily. Second, Crowder was blatantly incorrect. Did the NSDAP have some socialists early on? Yes. Hitler only joined up with them due to said socialist's vehement hate of Jews. Hitler not only objected to the renaming of the party, but he also removed all socialists from the party as soon as he got it under control. Three Arrows is a man that believes in Democracy and Global Cooperation. The Americans shot British Nationalists that wanted to impose Mercantilism. You're correct about Democracy being assigned as Communistic being incorrect, so I won't get into that. The Country is lurching to the extremes due to massive misgivings with the general populous against the incumbent president's Authoritarian spiel.
@Three Arrows. I have one criticism I guess...but you forgot one critical argument on the side of brining these statutes down. But Robert E Lee was actually against any confederate statues being built. His reasoning:"the reunited country needs to heal and any monuments would reopen those wounds"
@@franciemacleod The "1% opened slaves," figure is created by heavily cropping the data. First, this figure includes free states, where owning slaves was illegal. Looking only at slave states the figure jumps to 5%. And this still isn't entirely accurate, as some states where slavery was legal had very few slaves (Delaware is the best example). Including all the slave states, legally only the head of the family owned slaves, even though the whole family used them in the same manner: the percentage of families to own slaves was 20%. If you count by households (which is slightly broader), this jumps to 25%. Even the 25% figure isn't enterly accurate, because there was a lot of people who's job depended on slavery without them personally owning anyone. Most slave drivers managed slaves owned by someone else, and some people rented from richer families with larger numbers of slaves.
It's interesting. Germany is littered with red army statues. They keep them to remind themselves of their evil past. The same statues have all been removed through out Eastern Europe. So yeah the double think shown by three arrows on this subject is pretty clear..
Your description of Rubin as someone who hates SJWs so much that he started believing in trickle down economics is such a great summation of his ideology.
@Matthew Chenault Trickle down economics is about lowering taxes on the rich, well okay, you can pull a Trump and temporarily lower everyone else's taxes too
@@artificialgravitas8954 trickle down economics would work only on condition rich people would intend to. Like if they used the additional money to invest into creating more job positions or increasing pays for workers while forgetting about own profit. But capitalism works thanks to egoism and most rich people would probably invest this money into something that will just give them more profit. Not everyone, but most.
Anyone who thinks trickle down economics is a good ideology only took introductory economics. Take higher level economics as well as environmental economics, and you'll learn why that doesn't work. Basically - Introductory micro and macroeconomics (ECON 101) - "How free market works in theory." Higher-level economics and environmental economics - "Why free market doesn't work the way you want it to in real life."
Seriously. Dude's a mouth breathing moron who only knows one thing to any degree of depth, and that's MMA. If he's 'schooling' you on anything else, it's probably time to heavily reexamine your life and figure out where it all went wrong.
I've visited a museum exhibit of nazi propaganda, and it could be something similar to that, but the trap we fall is that we are granting that each and everyone of these statues are historically significant. Some of these statues could be part of this exhibit. But the so called compromise position is unfeasible as that it wants all of this nonsense in museums and that's unnecessary to convey the point. It's a completely inefficient use of resources.
Yes, she's pretty. And if one's data was representationally gathered, a study that drew on that data could end up being scientifically sound. By coincidence. So what I'm saying is she's wrong on three levels, but could still end up being correct. After getting into a time machine, finding myself in my late 20s, and then while trying to befriend our favorite blonde, I would emphasize how she was right about this deal, and she was correct about this other thing, and hit the nail on the head when she got into this other situation...
I've noticed the anti-left outrage is mostly from people who are pro-Trump. I don't remember previous presidential candidates like Ted Cruz, John McCaine, and Mitt Romney being nearly as controversial or as hated as Trump
"non-Seqitor" If you want to impress others with your highschool debate clubs skills, orthography becomes kind of important. Plus, what exactly is the non sequitur? What is the argument, what are the premises, you are referring to, and who actually presented them? You don't care, you just like fancy words, and then you are too dumb to spell them correctly. Also, they did not only "not agree" and "had issues", they killed a lot of people for their "idea" of ending the United States over an election result, they disagreed with, talking about the importance of upholding slavery in each of their war declarations.
Matthew Chenault Yeah they had issues with american ideals like following the law. Also the main argument around this stuff is that this is *history* therefore that is why these statutes are needed. As a reminder of what happened. How is it a non-seqitor to bring up that same argument for 9 /11 you idiot?
Son of the Black Rage No it was an inner- racist cunt war (the fight against greedy money hungry racists), on whether or not they should be able to devoid other human beings of their rights. I think that matters too, a bit more than whatever the f*ck the law might have been. And also it was a war based on not following federal rule (again due to greed and also arrogance), not on any good reason for secession.
Christopher Stanley I've always argued that Columbus Day should be replaced by Robert Shaw. Shaw is an actual American, an actual hero, and him and Columbus share a birthday.
a hellenic pagan John Brown. He stabbed that crap out of racists and died fighting injustice. We need to remember that. The *'good'* white people need to be remembered
People who think these confederate monuments are about celebrating history probably also think “In God We Trust” was always on currency, “Under God” was always in the pledge, and that Columbus was always celebrated. They already don’t know history.
I wonder if they have the same problem with the statues toppled when Sadam fell, or the Soviet Union fell, or the Wall fell, or Hitler fell, or when the Irish ripped down the statues of English folk after they claimed independence? To these people, history means forever enduring the gaze of those who fought to dominate you.
Sir Jaojao Actually communism still has a follow-up in parts of Eastern Europe, - in the former USSR, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. It's for genuine reason too, indeed.
The Confederacy was not an ideology? I dunno... what would you call a world view that views other human beings in such a way that they can be bought and sold as property except a pro-slavery ideology? And it is very convenient that, despite being traitors to their countries, the leaders of the Confederacy were relatively lightly punished for their crimes against The Union. They were given ample opportunity to go forth and influence the future form of southern society with the core ideology that they fought for and sent humans to their deaths to defend. Putting people they considered inferior in chains.
Matthew Chenault the USSR isn't an ideology either, neither is Nazi Germany. Both are historical states just like the confederacy, and all three of them had their own ideologies.
Excellent analysis as always. Living in Madrid over the last decade this issue was a constant, particularly over street names in the capital named after Nationalist generals and the tomb of Franco sitting in the Valle de los Caídos (a mega monument constructed by Republican prisoners on the outskirts of Madrid). Despite claiming that the monument represented *all* the dead of the civil war it was constantly used as a pilgrimage site by Fangalistas (fascists). They seem to have sorted it out now though, finally. Franco's off to a catacomb where he belongs.
JP Coen heeft absoluut niks gedaan The Conquistadores and Franco are completely different subjects: the first are a (very flawed by today standards) product of their time, the second is a brutal fascist dictator that took power from a democratic republic just short of three generations ago. Now, as it's stated in the video, monuments must be taken within their context. If there are Conquistador statues in Latin America, they should absolutely be taken down out of respect for the remaining native population. In mainland Europe, these statues should be preserved, since they're part of our history.
We need to push back against this bullshit that the conquistadors were "people of their time." Tons of commentators from the same era viewed those men as treacherous, evil, greedy barbarians who had no respect for morality as then understood. The atrocities committed by the conquistadors were used as anti-Spanish propaganda throughout Europe in the 16th and 17th (hell even into the 18th-19th) centuries. Non-conquistador Spaniards (most famously Bartolemew de las Casas) who saw the results of the conquest were appalled. Not to mention actual slavery had been outlawed in Western Europe for a few centuries by the time guys like Cortez brought it back for the Native Americans. There is no getting around it, the conquistadors were morally bankrupt people by the standards of ANY time period who got away with their evil because of the distance from authorities who could stop them (Spanish monarchs put out numerous decrees to try to curb the abuses of the colonizers that were all immediately ignored) combined with the immense wealth they got from theft and murder. Just because an atrocity happened in the past doesn't mean that people of that time period viewed the action as morally acceptable.
> _didn't he save Spain from communism_ What drivel. The communists of Spain were *Spanish* people, they were not invaders from outer space, you silly, silly person.
Apple Pie not to mention the popular front was far from just communist. And in the northern basque and catalan regions it was mainly anarchists organising and fighting against the fascists! People need to stop seeing 'le ebil gommunism' as one huge monolithic entity. Communism is a stateless moneyless and classless society,which has not been achieved by any of the self proclaimed 'socialist' states in the world. The left is diverse (and confusing) it would do people well to learn more about it.
He didn't save Spain from communism, of course as fascist he was very anticommunsit, but Spain was not about to turn into a communist regime any time. In the 39 general election, the party that won was a left coallition that included Republican (left moderates), Socialist and Communist, the reforms that they promised were social reforms without communism as the final goal (the leader Azaña was for social reform, but only for very minor economics reform). Also, remember than the Republic that the Franco regime ended was a Constitutional Republic with universal voting rights (for men and women), universal free education, serious measures against government corruption and electoral fraud, freedom of commerce, freedom of speech and assembly and generally what we expect of a modern western nation. So, no they didn't save Spain of communism, nor that was their real goal, but that was the goal that they presented in their propaganda and you know what, the propaganda of fascist dictorships maybe is not very trustworthy. If that was their goal, they wouldn't have killed prodemocratic school teachers. In reality, there was no immininent communsit revolution in Spain and all the parties in the left coalition vowed to uphold the Republic Constituion. Also some of the forces that supported the Republic were right wing nationalists parties (Lliga Catalana, a party backed by Catalan bankers and capitalists and PNV, a traditionalsit party) The main different with Franco antisemitism to Nazi antisemitism is that 1) Spain did not have Jews ofr historical reasons, 2) was more religiously than racially motivated and 3) changed a lot due to international pressures (for example, they created the myth that Spanish government helped save thousand of Jews, after well, the allies won and they wanted not to be seen as former Hilter allies, which Spain certainly was, allthough inderectly). But phrases like "Judeo-masonic communist conspiracy" that he government speeches and propaganda used a lot doesn't really point to not being a "Jew hater". And also again "El valle de los Caidos" was built with political prisoners under force labour to commemorate the same guys who actually fought to make them political prisoners.
None of the people saying "we must preserve history" seem to remember that this is what books are for. When I want history, I dont go look at statues of folks I dont know, I find a book or an article.
Then they complain about “bias” or “Cultural Marxism” when they don’t like what’s in the books, so then they have to publish *their own books* with “A Patriot’s Guide to . . .. ” or “What Your Teachers Don’t Want You to Know....” in the title. Of course, that’s all assuming that at least some of these halfwits have even bothered to open a book since high school. When these people use the word “education”, they probably have something in mind like a series of five-minute PragerU propaganda videos.
They don't want to preserve history but their own ignorance of history. A Robert E. Lee statue won't tell you that he owned slaves, or that he was not "kind to his slaves," or (more importantly) what the American Civil War that he fought in was about. The statue tells you almost nothing about the man and his times, and that's how they like it. And it's not like the public place taken up by statues is squandered if you remove them. You can build statues to leaders of slave rebellions, to runaway slaves, to abolitionists, to Union officers. And maybe more effectively, at least if your target audience is white Southerners: statues to white Southerners who fought against the Confederacy.
@Yolo Swaggins I mean, these statues were basically put up to scare black people and preserve white supremacy. By taking them down we're putting that phase of our history behind us and moving forward.
Thank you for being one of the few voices that brings actual academic history into the conversation. Both sides of the argument did not bring this into the conversation. At least not Beyond surface level. I used to agree keeping the statues for the sake of historical purposes. But you are right these statues Were Meant basically as a middle finger to the Civil Rights Movement. You change my mind on this subject in a logical and academic historical level. Thank you!
Arnold is a tragic figure that SHOULD have taught us about taking care of our soldiers. I don't consider him nearly as bad as the fuckos that either helped rip the Union asunder, or directly assisted the people who tore the Union asunder. The US was barely a Nation at that point and we forget that MOST of the colonists weren't party to the Patriot movement. Being a "traitor" was being a Loyalist. In that situation, it's impossible NOT to be a traitor to someone - unlike the Confederates, particularly the slaveholding Aristocracy - who are the real group I have an issue with honoring and who have no sympathy from me. Regardless, the confederate statues were NEVER about history in the first place. They're not equivalent as examples in my opinion.
Funny Side note: If it's about "pReSeRvInG hIsToRy" than we should replace all the confederate statues with Grant and Sherman, with the depiction of burning buildings and sherman neckties (destroyed railroads); to PRESERVE the history of what happens when the South marches against the North.
"Take down Mt. Rushmore" This but unironically. The Black Hills are sacred for the Sioux tribe and were stolen out from under them even after the US government promised they would keep it.
We know those guys only fought to defend scalping, so don't give us a bunch of "lost cause" myth. We ought to tear down all their statues while sanctimoniously lecturing them about how they only put them up to oppress people. Then we should make fun of them for losing--especially to Sherman and his acts of terrorism.
I was long undecided whether Confederate monuments in the South should be preserved or not. I mean, any decent person would agree that the Confederates were scum... but still, monuments are history, and I don't support the destruction of art or statues no matter how much of a scumbag the subject of the piece was. We know Nero was a tyrant, we known Henry VIII was voted as the worst monarch in British history for a good reason, we know Genghis Khan was infamous for a reign of terror... but despite all of those personas being absolute degenerates, I doubt anyone would suggest demolishing their monuments, right? I mean, the presence of their monuments does not in any way represent that anyone would like to resurrect them into power today. However, here is why I've come to the conclusion that Confederate monuments should be demolished. Not only that, but I think the Confederate flag (or flags) should be banned from official use... just like the Nazi flag is not waved around Germany. See, while the historical figures I've mentioned are well in the past and have no modern ideological claim... the Confederate ideology is still out there. I mean, it started not long after the end of the Civil War, and lasts to this day, the neo-Confederate ideology and the "Lost Cause" nonsense. I've done my research in various political Facebook groups, and I was horrified to see how much there is an attempt to justify what the Confederacy did. Neo-Confederates attempt to push the "Lost Cause" narrative, claiming the Civil War was not about slavery but about "state rights"... they just omit the part how the "right" they were talking about was mainly the "right" to hold other beings as slaves. All of the slave women raped, all of the men whipped, all of the abuse, the chains, the humiliation... nope, neo-Confederates conveniently cut it out. And that ideology never stopped! The lynching continued well into the 20th century. In the 1920, the KKK peaked 6,000,000 members, that was Confederate ideology right there. The horrific segregation laws continued into the 1960s, and same was with the anti-miscegenation laws that literally had humans sent to prison for having interracial relationships. But that didn't stop in the 1960s! In 2017, a violent rally took part in Charlottsville, Virginia, called "United the Right Rally" against the removal of Confederate monument. In the rally, Confederate and Nazi flags were waved. The reason I support the removal of Confederate monuments is because that ideology, the horrific and vile ideology of slavery and the subjugating of other human beings, is still there! The dehumanisation of black people is still there. Those monuments are part of that ideology and are used to preserve it. And you know what? I honestly understand where neo-Confederates are coming from... it's not easy to admit your ancestors were lowlife scum who fought to preserve slavery, so you create a new narrative. Will the descendants of Nazi soldiers try the same in the future? Who knows. And yes, I know not all Confederate soldiers were for slavery, some were drafted against their will... and? So were many soldiers serving in the German Army in WWII. Your point is...? The ones with a moral compass deserted, and the ones with a moral compass and courage did what the great Newton Knight and the Free State of Jones did, and resisted the Confederate regime. Those monuments need to be demolished, pretty much as we don't have Nazi monuments around today. No black child should have to walk past a monument which was the gathering point of those who violently lynched his great uncle, and which still serves as a gathering point for those who lament the loss of the Confederacy and lament the abolition of slavery.
Very well put, Maxim. The only issue I see is that the people who are here who need to read this will just skip over it, and probably call you a communist or something.
You know DW Griffith and Woodrow Wilson were indirectly responsible for the resurgence of the KKK? Griffith directed THE BIRTH OF A NATION. Wilson showed it _in the White House_ and called it "History written by lightning."
Actually they've recently learned much more about Nero from Pompeii. It turns out he wasn't anywhere in near as bad as alleged by Tacitus. Tacitus definitely had an agenda because of his hatred of Rome as well.
In the United States we not only have statues of traitors placed in positions of honor, but we name army bases after them as well. What other country names army bases for traitors who took up arms against their own country???
An antisemitic rally that resulted in the death of a young woman was over the removal of a monument to a man who explicitly did not want any monument dedicated to him or the war he fought...
I'm from Tampa FL, where we used to have 2 schools named after Robert E. Lee. (only 1 now). The public school was renamed in 1943 to have Lee's name. Where were these schools located? In predominantly black neighborhoods. Which leads me to wonder how many white Americans are familiar with the Double Victory Campaign.
There has been plenty of revisionist history in marxist (at least self-acclaimed) states, as has been in all totalitarian states. The US is an interesting example of a democracy engaging in all the same stuff, though.
I'm always confused about the lost cause thing. Even if all the Southern soldiers were chivalric, noble warriors that drank sasperilla, said ma'am all the time and never wanted a war... it wouldn't matter. The South HAD SLAVES! I don't care what aesthetic they had, they OWNED PEOPLE!
They argues that slaves had their own culture which was destroyed by the north, and that living conditions were "mighty fine" for them. Zippity Doo Dah- from Song of the South, pretty good example.
And you think the north didn't? The emancipation proclamation never freed anyone. Lincoln had slaves in the white house, but they were called servants...really. think about it.
Matthew Chenault The fact that the 13th Amendment was ratified literally in the same year as the south’s surrender is just a coincidence, eh? I know this sounds absolutely crazy, but Abraham Lincoln wasn’t going to force the only slave owning states that didn’t secede to give up their slaves while he’s in the middle of a bloody Civil War.
I love how the pizza hut ad cuts in at exactly the moment you say you're about to go to a Dave Rubin interview. For a second there I thought he'd got a new job.
@@kenabbott8585 Dude stop commenting on all these old comments, we know youre just another confederate apologist who refuses to believe that the south were objectively bad guys in the civil war and were TRAITORS.
@@beepbooprandomcommenter2214 Dude, stop celebrating terrorism. Yes, my refusal to believe blatant bullshit is quite evident. Also the fact that this pisses you off.
23:33 "You can find anything wrong with people whose... monuments are in our parks." "Public monuments of historical figures are not supposed to be idols that we celebrate and worship for their perfection." -- Lauren Southern It's funny, because I agree with ALL of that! But she turns around and uses it as an argument in favor of her position, when it absolutely isn't. If every historical figure is imperfect and their likeness is not meant to be "worshipped," then why on Earth is she acting like tributes to them are sacrosanct, and the mere suggestion of removal is a threat against civilization itself? And also why are the monuments consistently created in a style that is framed in an inherently idolizing way? This country is really struggling with the notion of viewing these monuments as impeachable and impermanent, that's what this debate is about. But it's just the logical way of treating statues that were erected on public land, with very clearly divisive political intent.
So the South was actually fighting for states rights, but when some Northern States did not want to return slaves who ran away the South pushed to to have the Federal government force those states to return the slaves. So the South wanted the states rights they supported, not states rights they didn't like. They really supported the rights for states to own slaves, with this right above any other they espoused. There are not many examples where so many people fought so hard to support such a despicable position as the right to keep humans as slaves.
Fun fact about George Washington: you can visit his damn house like 5 miles south of Old Town Alexandria The Confederate constitution forbid any law ending slavery
Matthew Chenault Show me your "victim card" more you snowflake. Compared to most wars driven by monetary or land interests, the emancipation of a handful of people from those who kept them subjugated and owned them as literal property over the course of their entire lives isnt as morally disgustingly genocidal as youd try to make it. Identify the motive and stop crying cause people of your own skin color who owned others created the conditions for their violent downfall, especially when those who did it were the actual victims of violent and abusive system of slavery.
I advocate for slaves being the victims, not the owners. If you want to play apologist for unchangeable history be my guest, the death of the confederacy wasn't worth the death of the institution of slavery for you. Cant help but bleed your heart out for those who took part in it, should they have been gentle conformists or violent extremes of its atrocities. Just don't forget the confederacy was founded on the principle of white supremacy and their right to continue the institution of slavery into the new states that would be forming in the move to western territory. Every confederate fought against his countryman cause they were appalled by the idea of racial equality (lol as if they even got it afterwards) and the collapse of their slave economy. The confederacy formed off these premises and only had one change to the constitution, an amendment to own slaves as a constitutional right. Its hard to tell if you genuinely resent the end of slavery or you just have such a bleeding heart you cant justify any death in war, whatever the ends, causes or motives. You forget war is essentially forceful political action. I suggest you stop romanticizing slave owners and dubbing slaves violent savages for their revolts, their desperate attempts to seize their freedom.
You are so hell bent on playing a victim card, must be hard for your brainlet to comprehend the motives behind those actions and how a life of perpetual forced labor and suffering is bad, simply cause in some rare cases people got murdered cause of their association with those who owned the slaves. Must be hard to think about how few slave uprisings actually happened compared to the slaves that lead full lives in that institution, how much mental anguish and physical abuse was inflicted to countless individuals to ensure their obedience and labor. You don't care about the suffering endured by the victims of the institution of slavery cause of an act of violent emancipation, that slaves who were denied any basic human dignity, who were at their wits end, who would be ready to die for their freedom rather than continue to endure the anguish of that institution. Estimated 250 rebellions total in the US, the participants of those likely making a minute number of the total slave population at every point it occurred, a minute number compared to the 4 million slaves in the south before their emancipation, compared to the amount of slaves being treated like cattle since colonial days. You genuinely value the owners more than the slaves, you are incapable of impartially viewing the huge amount of suffering ended, through a violent mean sadly, but that otherwise was not going to happen because the US would rather split itself than risk racial equality and a hit to the economy of human cattle. The simplistic view of reality is yours (since you want to assume mine, I can only return the favor), where you are bent on categorizing races that have had no genuine data or even historical manifestation that can lead to the rational belief of racial supremacy. The only way an argument for racial supremacy is built is by sucking off the dated, debunked rhetoric of the slave owners, confusing correlation for causation and using your tiny brain to ignore sociology as a whole. Not to mention a lot of ego. If youd be concerned with the murder of innocent people id like to see you defend the Native Americans this passionately, not to mention the Jews, the Arabs, the Vietnamese, the South Americans who endured US funded dictators and cold war proxy conflict bs.
As a direct descendant - from multiple lines - of at least 3 of the people to whom these monuments are commonly erected - yes. They should all come down. Every one of them should be removed. Teaching the history of racism in the United States does not require statues glorifying slavery, racism, and hatred. All the things named after them - all the roads, schools, public buildings - should be renamed. None of that will affect what is included in history books. Maintaining things like battlefields (Manassas or Gettysburg or Vicksburg, for example) or war hospitals or other similar actually historically relevant locations is sufficient - and can present the information in the light of historical scholarship rather than racist screed. I live in VA - and in this state there are currently multiple armed forces installations named for confederate leaders, multiple roads named for them, many statues erected to them. But there is also the Manassas battlefield - and that does more to actually illuminate the history of the conflict than any of the other things mentioned. Keep that one. Oh, and in re: slippery slope - okay. So what? Even if the slippery slope happens and ALL statues of individual leaders are removed - inclusive of Mt. Rushmore (Which is, absolutely, a monument of white supremacy, taking a sacred Native location and defacing it with images of the culture which killed and dislocated an enormous percentage of Natives. And it was done by a man with specific and clear ties to white supremacist groups, so this was no accident.), so what? No history is lost. The books and documents still tell the history. The battlefields still exist. If we took every single statue to any individual down, possibly replacing some with historical markers or ... I don't know, models of the water molecule... it would make no actual difference to historical knowledge.
Just a note or correction for you, you showed the statue of general James Longstreet at 12:38. He fought for reconciliation after the war, joined the republican party, led a black militia in new orleans that defended against a white supremacist riot, and general served to dispel the notion of "the lost cause." I don't really see a problem with his statue.
I was unaware that statues were our only way of telling history and you know, not museums or the internet... statues have always been around glorifying historical figures and their achievements.
As a conservative living in the US, I really appreciate this video. Great info. And i have to agree with you. I like where you draw the line for appropriately evaluating whether a statue should be removed. Aiming for center, as you do, brings stability to these political questions that i feel is missing from both parties in America. The flimsy arguments you had to debunk in this video are likely posed by conservatives simply because they dont trust democrats' motives and judgment. By now, i think you can see why. Many legitimate. But many not. I also cant help but point out that these monuments are protested by Democrats, when they were erected by Democrats, to honor Democrats. And somehow many Republicans feel the need to preserve them. *Visible confusion*
Even better, we'll have a counter-counter plaque. To make sure all points of view are honored, just below the plaque there should be a another plaque explaining why the first plaque was put there and this was a bad idea. In the free market place of ideas, surely the best will rise to the surface!
@@TheSaltyLibrarian I say we need a full comprehensive history of the person, just to make sure the context is clear. We'll need a lot of space though, so probably 4 plaques - but really big ones. We can put one on each side, and to fit all the context in a legible font, they'll need to be say, the full width of the statue, and about 20 feet tall. I think that would be a reasonable compromise.
The only civil war related statue the confederate states deserve is one of a scowling General Sherman with the inscription: "You better behave or I will come back and finish what I started!"
Hmm, you might be right, the message probably would not be succinct enough. A scowling General Sherman holding General Lee's gristly decapitated head up in a gesture of triumph in one of his hands ought to get the point across.
After Lincoln was assassinated, a statue of him should have been erected in every former Confederate State Capital along with a plaque of the Gettysburg Address. But in doing that, Johnson would have to have actually done some Reconstruction. But a statue of Sherman? Ok but only in Atlanta.
@@neillist5517 Shame Matthew there is a historical revisionist who desperately wants to pretend the obvious fact about why these statues were set up extremely hastily around the time of the civil rights movement isn't the truth, but it was just them "honoring their dead"
@Benjamin Figgins Can't wait to see how long it takes Matt there to descend into McCarthyism this time, if you want a laugh, check out the rest of this inept southerner's defenses of the confederacy and those propaganda monuments in this comment section
Matthew Chenault Statues aren’t the same as history books pal. Statues are meant to celebrate people. They were never, EVER considered anything close to historical documents.
Matthew Chenault And what exactly is in those statues that wouldn’t fit there narrative? Does the left not want people to know the confederates rode horses?
yeah racist aside, why condiser yourself a patriot/nationalist if you keep on celebrating the confederate and traitors? so socialists are always traitors, but confederate aren’t not or at least re-think.
@Polandgod 75 You can find people in Scotland who will wave both the Scottish and Union Jack flags, identifying with both, despite the fact that the UK and Scotland have historically fought one another and have been rivals. I imagine the sentiment is similar for Southerners.
no one is destroying libraries, museums, or burning books so no one is destroying history. Just tearing down idiotic pointless statues that are really needed at all.
Wasn't there a southerner who lead a charge and freed slaves who was then executed for it? I forgot his name but that dude was a legend, he deserves a bunch of statues.
I like what Budapest did to the Soviet statues. They're at a park (called Memento Park) people can visit and buy memorabilia that make fun of the Soviet rule of Hungary under the Cold War. They aren't in a museum that commands authority where you have to whisper, but outside, where everyone can leisurely stroll and talk normally.
Die Stärke deines deutschen Akzents haut mich immer wieder vom Hocker. ;P Freue mich, dass sich ein Landsmann auf TH-cam für die linke Sache stark macht.
Sehr spezielle Marke "linker Sache", die reaktionären Propagandadreck verbreitet, und wer einen dermaßen dämlichen Akzent spricht, sollte lieber bei seiner Muttersprache bleiben.
I was born in the south and have always been proud of our rebellious spirit and see the confederate battle flag as a symbol of our heritage rather than racism. I personally believe the civil war was a great period in America. Obviously not for the enormous loss of life or the fight to preserve slavery, but because it led to emancipation and reconstruction era civil and voting rights. It finally answered the question of slavery not addressed in our constitution. I never supported segregation, the Klan, or Jim Crow, and always supported protests for rights and freedoms during the turbulent 60's as being a fight for equality. I hedged on removing our historical monuments because I see confederate Generals as great men of the great war that tried our nation and played a role in America becoming a, "more perfect union." If placing the monuments was an afront to civil rights, then take them down. Having switched parties as recently as 2008 with the failure of "trickle down" economics, the rise of populist movements including MAGA and Christian nationalism, and the great division and talk of violence or even civil war if democrats win the next election, I am proud the democratic party carries the banner for the party of Lincoln and civil and voting rights. Republicans will not resurrect MAGA's lost American dream by leading us into fascism.
My solution to all those southerners who want to 'retain a connection to history' via Civil War monuments is to come to a compromise. They can have their Civil War general riding a horse statue. But that General will be Sherman. And it will be a remembrance of his march to the sea. They won't want to take down Sherman statues in the south, right? Because that's our history!
That would be the equivalent, wouldn't it? Erecting a statue to William T. Sherman in downtown Savannah. I don't think people in the area would like that very much. That would be kinda the point, wouldn't it?
Im much more concerned on them being kept to remember what went wrong in the past as a constant reminder. I wouldn't be opposed to adding a statue of Osama for people to be reminded of what happens with religeous extremism and all that jazz.
Achilleskneel I didn’t even know Robert Byrd even had a statue... yeah at that to the list. It stands for the same things the confederate statues stand for.
I'd personally say there is three ways to deal with these statues: 1. If they are of little material and artistic value and hold little to no historic value beyond being lost cause tripe, scrap them. 2. If they are well made, have a history that justifies the effort and can be removed, give them over to a museum that is up to the task of adequately presenting them, where they can be displayed and the full context of their purpose and meaning can be explained. 3. If it isn't possible to move them or if there's no museum that will take them, turn their meaning into something positive by building educational sites around them. Install informational plaques (not little ones, big ones, all around them) and big info-tables, that tell a passerby who built them and what the malicious intent behind that was. This has been done to great effect here in Germany and Austria with certain pieces of Nazi art and architecture. In essence: turn them from artifacts of the Lost Causers into sites that educate people on the evils of historic revisionism.
I also went to Verdun and saw all those gravestones and the worst part, in my opinion was that, once you drive away from that field again, there's more, smaller grave yards at the side of the road for the next few kilometers. So you just saw this unimaginable number of dead people laid out in front of you and you've filed that memory away and want to drive back home or to your hotel or wherever but on the way... there's just more and more dead soldiers
Listening to arguments from US from 1/2 way across the globe, it all sounds so familiar regarding Lenin statues. Well except calling people that oppose keeping those "Marxist". It would be pretty ironic if someone had done that.
I just wanted to say that I love how I heard you first pronounce the KKK as "Kook Klux Klan". It might not be what you've said, but I think it still fits.
Remember when she as a reporter for Rebel Media tried to paint the entire anti-Trump movement as being card carrying member of ANTIFA in an edited 'raw footage' video of the Trump inauguration protests? Pepperrdge Farms Remembers
Hans-Joachim Bierwirth Forcible separation of children, toddlers and babies from their parents and then interning them is fucking awful, and when the head of the agency responsible for these acts, ICE, resorts to the Nuremberg Defense to cover his ass, yeah it's real easy to compare this shit to 30s Germany.
Usually, when a regime is overthrown, the new government removes all the statues of the old one. So, why isn’t that the case in the American South? Makes you wonder.
@Matthew Chenault You awful, lying piece of shit. Those statues were built as a fuck you to the freed slaves that became de facto slaves under sharecropping and Jim Crow. There was nothing reconciling or atoning in those explicit monuments to the failure of Reconstruction
I'm from and was educated in Texas and every year it was emphasized to us on our state standardized tests that the cause of the civil war was state's rights and that the emancipation proclamation was made just to make the south allied France think the war was about slavery. Every single year we took a standardized history test we were told this was the right answer. It wasn't until college I even heard about the lost cause of the south and basically had to relearn the civil war chapters of history. It's insidious and doesn't surprise me that so many southerners really believe that when it's literally fed to us through out state mandated curriculum
The "state's rights" line is insidious because it's not incorrect, but it's not the whole story at the same time. It was about state's rights. To have slavery in their territory. The Confederate leadership made this very clear in their own writings and even their independence documents. The Civil War didn't start over the abolition of slavery, but it certainly ended up being about it. Also, the North did capitalize on emphasizing the role of abolishing slavery in the war to European nations, mostly Russia.
Your name is Cordova, of source you don't agree with Southern history. Lastly, university and college hardly teach unbiased history either. Both aren't even close to Oxford university guide lines, which is also falling pray to retarded Libbie " corrections" of history.
And that's why people don't think much of college.
Lincoln himself admitted that the proclamation was a political measure, and stated clearly that if he could win the war without freeing a single slave he would do so.
bezkintsa kintsa Hahahaha reading and learning about history is “Libbie correction” shut up
@@magnusprime10
Hahahaha getting fed a bunch of drivel about how history proves civilization and freedom are evil is "reading and learning about history."
Shut up yourself.
"He hates SJWs so much that he started believing in trickle down economics at some point in time". Best description of Dave Rubin's ideology.
A good description of many Trump supporters as well.
Matthew Chenault
And apparently you don't understand the difference between theory and and real life. Because it doesn't work in the real world.
@Matthew Chenault Dude shut up you're dumb lol
Matthew Chenault Can you give... any evidence that there is anything approaching wide support among the left for either of those things?
Matthew Chenault Nice strawman. Did you actually watch the video you linked to? I did. Never once did they say that the air was racist. They pointed out that predominantly African-American and poor neighborhoods have been disproportionately ignored when places in their communities contaminate the air, and the lack of government... care-ness for lack of a better term (I’m sorry I just woke up from a nap) leads to these communities being more affected by things that are a danger to all Americans. Now, you could argue that the title does utilize identity politics in assuming that the reason these communities have been ignored is because of race and not social class, but either way, it’s hardly “down the rabbit hole” or nearly as bad as you are saying.
Rogan is not a genius, but next to Rubin he is an intellectualy titan, a true man of the world.
I was like "holy fuck Joe Rogan is the sensible part in the conversation, that's wild"
99% of the time Rogan doesn't impress or have a coherent argument. But that remaining 1% of the time? He can really knock it out and surprise you. He's like a dementia patient that, once a year, does some calculus equations.
@@partlycurrent well that compliment ( to joe Rogan ) has not aged well.
@@peterthegreat996 has it not? :D I don't follow internet politics anymore really. No idea what Rogan is up to now
@@peterthegreat996 I'm curious as well, not enough to look into it, did Joe Rogan become more or less reasonable
The US soldiers at the end of world war II destroyed pretty much any Nazi and Hitler iconography they could get their hands on, yet we still know who he is and the atrocities he committed. If these people really did care about history accuracy, maybe they should criticize the military they worship
@Achilleskneel What Values can these statues ever represent, but Slavery, what "noble" cause do you think you're referring to? - Nothing!
And there's a reason we admire the Greeks for thinking, but not what they thought then, a reason we don't use their texts of the times as Guides.
@Achilleskneel Both sides may feel equally righteous, but are they really? All soldiers in every war are told they are defending their country, what matters is what their country stands for.
I as a German will not cry for a killed Nazi and I do not care if those men died thinking themselves brave and righteous, what matters is if they're right, they weren't.
And if by ulterior motive you mean "not paying for symbols of oppression" that's a pretty good motive in my eyes
@Achilleskneel Do you enslave people because they don't speak Greek or Egyptian, also when did I say the Union were the villains... I don't remember that part
And I notice you've left open what the Statues are supposed to mean other than slavery
@Achilleskneel 1) Hardly Wisdom when every 2nd one of you spits out the "defending their home argument"
2) Three arrows actually explained that in the video, regarding the statues in public spaces being maintained with > Taxpayer money <
3) What if they're removing the statues because they should never have gone up in the first place?
4) Even people were removing them to make themselves feel better, is that any argument to leave statues to people who fought for slavery?
@Achilleskneel The Venn diagram of People who want the statues to stay and "Lost Cause" supporters is not too dissimilar to a circle
It seems you're claiming those protestors are fakes, with that 'Bused in' comment, is that what you're saying?
They are onto us.
Rubin's ideas are basically whatever the last person he talked to told him.
Just like Trump. Coincidence? You decide 😁
Yeah, I know. I am also old enough to remember him on TYT.
EXACTLY!
Nah, he's a Koch sucker. He agrees with whatever they specifically say.
Or what the Koch brothers pay him to think.
Removing a statue doesn’t erase or change history. People arent suddenly going to forget the civil war simply because there is no longer a statue of Lee.
Exactly, people don't think logically. The point is that these statues do often have racist origins with how they were erected in protest of the second reconstruction.
Nonsense! My town renamed a street named after Lee and now I've forgotten everything in between 1861 and 1865.
@@toasty8599 But... how did you know the years of it, then?
Most people dont visit museaums and wont find out about him. Femtard like you are fascist.
@@annewaipiti8804 I'm sure the internet is useless in learning history
One Confederate general you rarely hear about from a lot of these people trying to glorify the confederacy is James Longstreet (you actually showed a picture of him, but that's really one of the only statues in existence, and it's on the battlefield in Gettysburg in Union territory, not in a southern town square). He was, in many war historian's opinion, one of if not the best military mind of the Civil War. He was at least a major reason why the rebellion lasted as long as it did, and played a key role in many battles. Yet, Longstreet is not talked about among neoconfederates, and it's easy to see why. After the war, he largely reversed his position that the Civil War was justified and accepted defeat, basically admitting the whole thing was a mistake. Many southern (hate) groups throughout history openly talked about how he should not be memorialized because he was inconvenient to their Lost Cause narrative.
And to me that's all the proof you need that these statues are not memorializing history (whatever that means) or memorializing the great military minds and personalities in the war, because if that were the case, he would have just as many, if not more, statues and memorials than someone like Stonewall Jackson. It was all about racial and societal ideology at the time, trying to rewrite history.
Stuart has a rather large statue in Richmond, and the only mar on his legacy is that he made a real mistake during Gettysburg (something Lee forced the Confederates into even though it was a stupid idea). Longstreet in reality made no big mistakes, and Confederate-friendly historians made up stuff about him to tar his legacy, and to this day there's almost no statues or commemorations of him outside his hometown. This is undoubtedly because he supported the Republican Party after the war and supported the freedom of blacks:
"Authors espousing the Lost Cause attacked Longstreet's war career for many years after his death. Modern authors trace that criticism to Longstreet's acceptance of the defeat and accommodations both with the Republican party and freed blacks. The attacks formally began on January 19, 1872, the anniversary of Lee's birth and less than two years after Lee died. Jubal Early, in a speech at Washington College, exonerated Lee for the defeat at Gettysburg and falsely accused Longstreet of having attacked late on the second day and of being responsible for the debacle on the third. The following year, William N. Pendleton, Lee's artillery chief, claimed in the same venue that Longstreet disobeyed an explicit order to attack at sunrise on July 2. Both allegations were fabrications; however, Longstreet failed to challenge them publicly until 1875. The delay damaged his reputation, as the Lost Cause mythology had now taken hold. Longstreet's former subordinate Col. John S. Mosby defended his commander, and other former Confederates who joined the Republican Party were subjected to similar criticism, including Gen. William Mahone and Robert W. Flournoy.
A "reconstructed rebel", Longstreet embraced equal rights for blacks, unification of the nation, and Reconstruction. After Longstreet died, his widow Helen Dortch Longstreet, privately published Lee and Longstreet at High Tide in his defense and stated that "the South was seditiously taught to believe that the Federal Victory was wholly the fortuitous outcome of the culpable disobedience of General Longstreet.""
I don't know why a "tragic" figure would be exempted from having statues made of him like all the rest. The fact is, when they were making many of these statues in the early 1900s, southerners hated Longstreet for being anti-Confederate after the war and told lies about how he disobeyed the Perfect God Lee's orders, even though Lee was the real reason they lost the war, if the war was ever winnable to begin with.
Thank you hentropy, you taught me something.
This is a really good point
This is entirely correct. His name was mud because he joined Grants administration at one point even commanded black soldiers during Reconstruction. The new south saw him as a traitor to the cause. So it's kinda obvious the statutes are not about celebrating history or great leaders if they purposely excluded an intelligent military officer.
hentropy, I find your post interesting and would request you to read mine posted here as well. I come to the opposite conclusion though we both make good points.
To quote our C.E.O. and megareverend John Oliver; "Monuments are not how we record history, _books_ are. Statues glorify people."
@Matthew Chenault A few things here:
1) Statues are easy to destroy, both physically (sledgehammers, ground tethers, and gravity) and chemically (dependant on the material used for creation of the statue).
2) While books can be burned, the manuscripts and publishing of the books still exists. The statue exists as its own entity that isn't as recreatable as a book.
3) The OP never said that quote was true. They merely attributed it and put it in the comments.
4) The weird living flesh and meat that generates an argument or quote doesn't automatically discredit the point being made. If it did, many reactionaries with easily debunked claims would never need more than 1 response video against them.
5) The destructibility of a medium does not change its message.
6) I genuinely don't know what you hope to accomplish after over a year of coming back to this comments section besides fishing for poorly worded responses among the well-reasoned ones you've received, or upping the overall comment count for this video, in which case you're helping the video in the TH-cam algorithm.
Statues give literally zero context. They're just a representation of a person, maybe with a brief plaque, that will tell you next to nothing other than that they're revered for some reason or other. Anyways, let's up go put up statues of Hitler and Pol Pot so we don't forget about their atrocities, except wait, at that point we'll just have glorified genocidal maniacs.
@Matthew Chenault Do you not know of the Iliad? It's a story from Roman times that is essentially the Roman Odyssey. The Iliad was never a monument or construction. Aeneas's writings are still known, whereas many ruins are lost.
On your point of the Egyptians: the Rosetta Stone was extremely helpful in translating the language. Had we lacked any record of communication between Egyptians and Greeks, translating would have been harder. However, language analysis exists on languages we haven't fully translated or understood simply because of patterns common among languages that exist in writing.
To claim I am "a truly evil person" is simply rude; you've not met me, nor do you understand my motivations. I don't seek to destroy things, as I agree with preserving historical structures and monuments. However, those monuments aren't always appropriate for a public space.
Books are able to contextualize things, cites sources, and give a view on the events described, whether or not the depiction is accurate. Statues do not provide context.
To make things abstract for a moment, imagine a person with a full understanding of the English language and no understanding of history. What do you think a statue of Jefferson Davis says to them? If it is publicly displayed, that implies they are worthy of some form of honor. The Constitution of the Confederacy grants much more context as to why the Confederate States came to be than the structures made decades after their time.
For the record, a mention of Hitler in an argument is not called reductum ad hitlerum, but Godwin's Law. You would also be using the wrong Latin gender suffix and case for Hitler.
@@Mark-the-Raider I know this is from 3 months ago but The Iliad was not Roman but Greek, attributed to Homer, and tells the story of Agemmemnon and Achilles during the Trojan War. The Odyssey, also attributed to Homer, is the story of the ten year voyage of Odysseus' return home to Ithaca.
I believe you may have combined The Iliad and Virgil's The Aeneid, the story of the Trojan Aeneas who travelled to Italy and became the ancestor of the Romans.
@@Kotosuatz Thanks for the correction. I was confused by what Mark said about The Iliad being Roman
The removal of monuments is the removal of idols, not history. The burning of the library of Alexandria was a removal of history.
@Matthew Chenault thanks for dragging everyone completely off the point.
@Matthew Chenault I've only lived in Florida for a few years in the past, so I honestly don't know much about this.
Two excellent points!
funny since progressives have scheduled an event to burn dr.Seuss's books
@@pootis4986 give a news source or something at least? Last time I checked no one cares about Dr. Seuss except for the Seuss company and right-wingers
Also Dr. Seuss doesn’t have historical texts. They’re children’s books. So you are doubly wrong
You don't understand Rubin because Rubin doesn't make any sense or show any understanding of anything.
Unrelated, but nice suit.
He flip-flops his views all the time.
Dave Rubin thinks he is the new Larry King. In reality he is nothing like Larry King and is an advocate of whatever their guest is yappering about.
Hotshotter3000 Very well put. I have the same problem with talking heads like Joe Rogan
+Santyxeorr I never watched much Joe Rogan, I know who he is, but I don't know much else.
"Marxism is when you remove racists' monuments, the more racist monuments you remove, the more marxister you are."
-Karl Marx himself.
Everything I Don't Like Is Marxism, or Something: A Guide to TH-cam Skepticism
The marxism understander has logged on, it seems.
I know you'll never agree that you're wrong because your user name is Augusto Pinochet, but i'll try to reason with you even though I know I'll regret it later.
You are the one who doesn't understand marxism (or methodologies in general, for that matter) Erasing history has been around since before Marx had even been born. The romans had this thing called Damnatio memoriae, where they literally erased someone from history, or tried to do it, we also have the example of people who deny the Armenian Genocide, people who claim that the USA won the Vietnam war, or the Holocaust deniers who do try to erase parts of their history, none of them are marxist in any sense, so even if erasing history were a marxist concepto (which is not) that wouldn't mean that every erasure of history ever would be marxist, because other do that too (even though marxist don't, in reality, but please bear with me). In order to demonstrate that erasing history is marxist, you'd have to either, explain how every instance of doing it is marxist or to point out any specific element in marxism that suggests doing it.
Now, according to marxism, there's a thing called superstructure, which is dependent on the structure. The structure is economical, so changing it would also change the superstructure, which is where our current narrative of history and tradition lie, so, that sentence you wrote "You have to deconstruct every aspect of the current capitalist system to replace it with true communism" is kinda true, but once you understand marxism (which you don't) you realize that doing that doesn't require to erase history.
Finally, let's talk about the Great Leap Forward. I'm going to be lenient with the fact that you're probably confused with the Cultural Revolution and you referred to the latter and tell you that it wasn't an attempt to to erase history, it was an attempt to get rid of bourgeoise elements present in the culture of China IN THE PRESENT and to also finish with some of the remaining elements of traditional Chinese culture that according to chairman Mao interfered with the revolution. This has nothing to do with erasing history, since it isn't denying that certain events or things happened, but rather a prohibition against continuing doing such actions on the basis that they were harmful, wether you agree or disagree with Mao (I disagree, btw, since I do consider those would've naturally changed once capitalism had been overcome) you cannot compare his actions and goals with the erasure of history. Erasure of history is to pretend something didn't happen or to deliberately destroy it to make people forget about it and to prevent history from recording it. And well, even if the Cultural Revolution were an example of erasing history, it still wouldn't proof that erasure of history is a marxist concept, because China was the only example you can cherry pick of this being done, when there were lots of other marxist countries that didn't do it at all, that is a logical fallacy. China's supposed erasure of history (that didn't happen, BTW) is so valid an example of erasure of history being marxist as Stalin's bringing up the images of the old tsars during World War 2 to inspire soviet soldiers is an example of it not being marxist at all. I hope you've understood you're wrong. I recommend further reading on marxism.
"I know you'll never agree that you're wrong because your user name is Augusto Pinochet" I am sure he'll never agree with you because he somehow counts history as part of a CURRENT system; this level of inconsistency betrays a strong faith, logic won't work here.
Augusto, you seem to be implying that when after the breakup of USSR the new states started removing statues of communist functionaries (such as Lenin and Dzerzhinsky) and getting rid of many communist inspired city names (Stalingrad, Leningrad, etc.), they were actually doing something... Marxist?
Дмитрий Грязнов It's not about agreeing with me or not doing so. It's about the facts. And, well, the fact that his username is "Augusto Pinochet" shows how biased he is, so it's pretty much the reason he won't accept he's wrong.
How about we keep them up, but people are allowed to vandalize them. Everybody wins!
Charge for rotting tomatoes, etc to throw at the statues, could be a good money maker.
Jason Mckibbin capitalism at its finest
Jason Mckibbin
Vendor: tomatoes tomatoes 1$ normal 2$ rotten
Milhouse: ooh ooh, dad, can i get a rotten one
Kirk: do you really need a rotten one? I mean its not like you are actually going to hit him
*milhouse smiles in anticipation
@@benjaminpark5460 screw you feminzi capitalism is the perfect political set uop
@UnknownWRONG, libtard, as a successful capitalist, I OWN my Senator.
Not to mention, what would be the point of filling up a museum with statues of the same three people.
"Here's an equestrian statue of Lee, and another equestrian statue of Lee, and another one, here's one of him holding his hat, here's one with a sword..."
That's Joe Rogan's attempt at compromise
The vast majority of the statues should just be destroyed. A few of them I can see be put in a museum, but the rest are cheaply made and serve zero purpose in any context.
do you have only a few museums in the usa or an extreme number of lee statues?
@@draculf96 the 2nd one
@@draculf96 literally thousands. And about a dozen public schools named after him.
"Everything I don't like is Marxism." The Anti-SJW Guide to Online Discussion.
Emmett Leone-Woods None of them have ever read Marx
It's an easy out. The average person doesnt understand that socialism and communism aren't the same thing, so just say it is!
@@LadyTylerBioRodriguez But they do share collective/state ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. And I have read Marx.
@@JFDA5458 There are similarities, but they aren't strictly the same. Besides, the narrative is that these Marxist concepts are the same as fascism.
@@LadyTylerBioRodriguez Not the same, but most ideologies build on the framework of previous ideas and concepts. And I think what they're suggesting is not that Marxism and Fascism are the same but that both can be totalitarian in nature.
Excellent presentation! As a 60+, white male who grew up in Virginia I really appreciate this intelligent and well-supported perspective. Thanks
Virtue signaling isn't a virtue
@@freedombro seek therapy
Welcome to the community! We're happy to have you
@@freedombro Says someone who named himself "Freedom Bro."
Well if they are so interested in "preserving history" I demand my Lenin statues back
same
@@masterql5 yes
Lenin wasn't American history... Why would we have a Lenin, Mao, Stalin etc statue in America. That's dumb.
@@nincumpoop9747 then why have american statues in native american land?
@@IOStalin because it's/they're America(n). There are statues of great native Indians outside of reservations too, because they're great Americans.
Its amazing how fast Rubin consistently folds when confronted by Rogan.
Oscar Evans because Rubin doesn't stand for anything.
He also would very much like to continue riding on Rogan's coat tails.
Rogan has a large RW following. I'm surprised he took that position. It shows courage on his part imo
It's coz Rogan is a genuinely cool dude, and Rubin wants to be liked by Rogan.
He did the same thing when they discussed regulations. “Well I’m not saying get rid of all regulations, but we should get rid of all regulations. Govmint bad, corporations good.”
The black conservative guy debated Destiny a few days ago and was essentially denying the racist history of the US, he argued against stuff like redlining and talked positively about the KKK and how they actually were nice people because they gave his grandmother presents and gifts.
He's literally the parody version of all the Dave chappelle skits about right wing black people.
wait for real? There is a black guy out here who not only sipped the racist kool-aid but liked the flavor?
He’s uncle ruckus’ from the boondocks.
Svettgurkan ....Yep. The idiot is a modern day Clayton Bigsby.
Wasn't that Anthony Brian Logan? I've never really looked into him but generally I find that black conservatives are some of the most nutty human beings around. Examples include Elmer Williams and Pastor Manning.
Kris Handsome the funny part about them is even when the right demonizes African Americans they still think they are not the ones getting the disrespect because they are conservatives like the right wingers lol. Classic Stockholm syndrome.
Its funny, i dont see Rightist being mad about Lenin and Stalin statues being demolizhed?
@Ursus Americanus confederates are our enemies
Ursus Americanus The confederacy was literally an enemy to the united states. Just because they were our neighbors doesn't mean that they weren't the opposing side of, yknow, a war?
Todd Hårig because you’re communists
cause they're damn Commies
Todd Hårig That might be because 60 million people were murdered and starved to death by these assholes.
Best line: "Ruben's political ideology seems to be that he hates SJWs so much that he began to believe in trickle down economics at some point."
Pretty damn accurate.
Meanwhile you live in a society that benefits from the trickle down economy
@@freedombro Trickle down economy is a fraud that only fooled RW libertarians who put the label "freedom" on anything they make.
@@freedombro the only thin that trickles down to you is some unholy concoction of billionaire piss and shit
The fact that a German guy is giving a more thorough and honest account of American history than we get in schools here makes me sad for my country.
Well, quite easy to take sides in matters outside of your own culture, and even more so, if your stance is in line with german state propaganda. I. e. his whitewashing of prussian antisemitism is one of the traditional traits of the empires who fought against the french republic throughout the 19th century and two world wars. So this pseudoleft channel is basically a far right reactionary spewing revisionist bullshit and trying to mock the united states as a whole, although that's not what it looks like at first glance.
Hans-Joachim Bierwirth What?
You see because, Germany acknowledges the holocaust, and how bad it was. They are now cowards because they know something in their history that doesn't make them feel pride. This has resulted in them wanting to destroy their skin color, cause reasons, and The JEEEEWs are involved somehow, cause reasons.
non white in one generation
@@longshlong111 oh well it just means less skin cancer then.
A shoutout to all my Belgian comrades who routinely cut off the hands of Leopold II statues!
:D
“Comrades” that’s pretty gay M8 although that is a pretty good laugh
2manynegativewaves I’m pro gay rights, mainly because I think regulations on things that don’t hurt people are retarded. Almost as retarded as thinking calling stuff gay isn’t funny.
Belgium is only rich today because of what Leopold did. If it weren't for him Belgium would be as poor as Ukraine is today. You should be thanking him.
@@enclaveradioman6513 Shut the fuck up you dumb animal.
THEY'RE TURNING THE FREAKING FROGS GAY
*T H E R E I S S O M E T H I N G I N T H E W A T E R*
#NoChobaniHatersHere lol
When Ukraine tore down Stalinist iconography a few years ago, were they erasing their own history? No. They were removing Stalinist iconography.
When we remove Confederate monuments, we are not erasing history, we are removing Confederate iconography.
Kind of ironic really considering that Lee himself wanted no statues to himself or any other Confederate personalities erected anywhere and that when asked about flying the Confederate Battle Flag he answered, quote: "Fold it up and put it away."
Sounds like a lovely guy
Bruh he sounds like he really did not want to fight for the CSA which confuses me that if he’s really not that loyal to the Confederates then why fight for them?
@@whattawhaddaya6561 He was loyal to to his home state, Virginia. He did not want to fight against his home.
Here's a solution:
Add a statue of Lebron James dunking on all of the Confederate leaders.
Honestly, it wouldn't even help that much, but it would be fun. The alt-right would have a collective seizure.
@Ursus Americanus This American bear needs to put down his big stick and speak a little more softly.
I'm from Ohio, I would love that.
“You can’t dunk on history!!!”
A fun of the Daily Show I see.....
Don't think the "alt right " would care .
Most people don't care what crap the far left yammers on about
White Southerner here*. I’m also a dreaded marxist-leninist, one who’s even read the dastardly writings of the white-hating Black Panthers! At least, that’s what I was raised to believe.
There’s a lot of complicated history here that is simply ignored. 14% of my state voted for Eugene V Debs, the self proclaimed American Bolshevik, who spent time in prison for his vocal opposition to World War 1 and for agitating for revolution.
However, you wouldn’t know that reading current Louisiana History textbooks. You also won’t learn that the anarchist Industrial Workers of the World organized one of the first interracial unions here, that the Knights of Labor organized an interracial union in my hometown with a 10,000 strong strike that was put down by white militia killing anywhere from dozens to hundreds of people in the Thibodaux Massacre. You probably won’t hear about the utopian socialist colony of New Llano, although the town with that name is still there. You won’t hear about the 1930s strike of fishermen, utilizing armed resistance over low prices for catches, although a documentary was produced in the 1970s entitled “Huit Pieces et Demi!” which was the strikers’ slogan.
You will maybe hear about slave rebellions, like the 1811 German Coast Uprising.
But where are the statues and plaques to commemorate this history?
The bus boycott tactic made famous by Rosa Parks originated in Baton Rouge. The New Orleans Black Panthers were ambushed and shot up by a police raid. Three Panthers spent 30 years in solitary confinement after this raid, first arrested for defending themselves from the police, and then framed for the murder of a guard, really they were punished for daring to organize an end to prison violence and racial gangs to unite the prisoners.
None of this history is commemorated and it’s hardly ever discussed. Any resistance to exploitation or racism is hidden, for obvious reasons, especially if the resistance broke down racial walls.
This is the real revisionism. And it damages the psyche of poor and working people of all races and nations. It makes racism seem universal, hegemonic, and inevitable. It makes exploitation seem natural, inescapable, even if you hate it.
*I’m actually a Cajun-Creole, a group of people that hardly enlisted to fight in the Civil War, and had an extremely high desertion rate. We saw the war as “an American problem.” We didn’t really think of ourselves as American until sometime after World War 2, with forced Americanization and proletarianization. This doesn’t mean we didn’t and don’t have problems with racism and white supremacy. It does mean that for us to stop being “white n****ers,” as Anglos called us, French and Spanish had to be beaten out of us. The US oil companies feared violent resistance to the necessary despoliation of the land in service of the oil industry, and finally sought to proletarianize and Americanize us to avoid this after neglecting us for almost 100 years.
GL1TT3R _666 LMAO I can’t decide who to hate more; anti-sjws or economic illiterates like you. Mainstream economics exists for a good reason, dumbass.
Jay Lee buzzword buzzword buzzword
GL1TT3R _ 666
Is there any good books I can about any of the topics you wrote about? Or any good places to find this information? I've never heard about any of this and you've sparked my curiosity.
@Matthew Chenault we gonna deny any of that happened or what?
Thanks a lot for these very interesting pieces of history. May their memory be preserved.
Public discourse in the United States has lurched so far to the right that I've even starting seeing this: "Democracy = Communism". We went from "Socialism = Communism" to "Liberalism = Communism" to "Progressivism = Communism"...so I guess it was just a matter of time before democracy itself was equated to communism.
One really starts to wonder how the US ever got a democratic country in the first place.
I mean: There is this other Three Arrows video, where he lashes out against Steven Crowder calling Hitler a democrat or "left-wing socialist".
That's complete bullshit. You never saw that anywhere.
@@kenabbott8585 Which claim? Crowder definitely called Hitler Left-wing, but 3 Arrows didn't "lash out." He calmly explained why Crowder was wrong.
Your first claim is ridiculous. 3-arrows consistently lashes out at Crowder--not "calmly explain[ing]" anything but spewing a consistent stream of slander. In addition, Crowder wasn't wrong; Hitler was very much a socialist.
Amusingly, Fermin asks just how the US ever got a democratic country in the first place--the answer is by shooting people like 3 Arrows.
Second, since I pointed out what wasn't seen, it's fairly clear that I was referring to the OP's claim that he's seeing "Democracy=Communism." Nobody is claiming that, and nobody is equating democracy to capitalism, and he has not seen it.
The very idea that our country is lurching to the right is one of the dumbest I've ever seen--and seeing as this comment section is full of internet communists, that's saying something. Imagine a Democrat Party 20 years ago, or 30, or 50, that's more than 50% socialist. Imagine any Democrat in either of those times proclaiming that Christians should be jailed or sentenced to re-education for refusing to mock God.
Imagine the Republican party moving to the right as we went from Reagan to "No New Taxes" Bush to Dole (who proclaimed that Reagan could never get elected becuase he was too conservative!) to amnesty-and-medicare Bush, to McCain and Romney.
Mr. MacIntyre's statement is blant bullshit, and the conclusion he lied to support is flat-out gaslighting.
I've watched the video you are referring to, and never once did 3 Arrows ever lash out angrily. Second, Crowder was blatantly incorrect. Did the NSDAP have some socialists early on? Yes. Hitler only joined up with them due to said socialist's vehement hate of Jews. Hitler not only objected to the renaming of the party, but he also removed all socialists from the party as soon as he got it under control.
Three Arrows is a man that believes in Democracy and Global Cooperation. The Americans shot British Nationalists that wanted to impose Mercantilism.
You're correct about Democracy being assigned as Communistic being incorrect, so I won't get into that.
The Country is lurching to the extremes due to massive misgivings with the general populous against the incumbent president's Authoritarian spiel.
@Three Arrows. I have one criticism I guess...but you forgot one critical argument on the side of brining these statutes down. But Robert E Lee was actually against any confederate statues being built. His reasoning:"the reunited country needs to heal and any monuments would reopen those wounds"
I understand that Lee did not own slaves himself, actually only 1% owned them. There it is again, that 1%.
He was against Civil War monuments generally not Confederate monuments specifically.
@@franciemacleod Lee owned slaves. He even fought to keep slaves he believed he inherited in court.
@@franciemacleod The "1% opened slaves," figure is created by heavily cropping the data.
First, this figure includes free states, where owning slaves was illegal. Looking only at slave states the figure jumps to 5%. And this still isn't entirely accurate, as some states where slavery was legal had very few slaves (Delaware is the best example).
Including all the slave states, legally only the head of the family owned slaves, even though the whole family used them in the same manner: the percentage of families to own slaves was 20%. If you count by households (which is slightly broader), this jumps to 25%.
Even the 25% figure isn't enterly accurate, because there was a lot of people who's job depended on slavery without them personally owning anyone. Most slave drivers managed slaves owned by someone else, and some people rented from richer families with larger numbers of slaves.
@Matthew Chenault Yes, three quarters is an overwhelming majority. Or did you get too triggered to notice you're repeating something I said?
I wonder if these right-wingers would also defend Soviet monuments.
Ixian Technocrat they dont. All of Eastern Europe tears them down.
It's interesting. Germany is littered with red army statues. They keep them to remind themselves of their evil past. The same statues have all been removed through out Eastern Europe.
So yeah the double think shown by three arrows on this subject is pretty clear..
Albert Ross Except the former USSR and Yugoslavia ,lol.
+Qwerty Ytrewq what about IWW statues of Eugene Debs or Nicola and Bart? Or a monument dedicated to the lives lost during the Palmer raids?
Every city in Russia has a statue of Lenin.
Your description of Rubin as someone who hates SJWs so much that he started believing in trickle down economics is such a great summation of his ideology.
@Matthew Chenault Either that, or being in a position to profit off it
@Matthew Chenault Trickle down economics is about lowering taxes on the rich, well okay, you can pull a Trump and temporarily lower everyone else's taxes too
@@artificialgravitas8954 trickle down economics would work only on condition rich people would intend to. Like if they used the additional money to invest into creating more job positions or increasing pays for workers while forgetting about own profit. But capitalism works thanks to egoism and most rich people would probably invest this money into something that will just give them more profit. Not everyone, but most.
Money trickles down from Koch funded shell companies.
Anyone who thinks trickle down economics is a good ideology only took introductory economics. Take higher level economics as well as environmental economics, and you'll learn why that doesn't work. Basically -
Introductory micro and macroeconomics (ECON 101) - "How free market works in theory."
Higher-level economics and environmental economics - "Why free market doesn't work the way you want it to in real life."
When you get legitimately schooled by Rogan on anything but MMA you're doing something wrong.
Seriously. Dude's a mouth breathing moron who only knows one thing to any degree of depth, and that's MMA. If he's 'schooling' you on anything else, it's probably time to heavily reexamine your life and figure out where it all went wrong.
Yeah Rogan is cool but he's also kind of a knuckle dragger. He's honest about that tho.
@@fdghtsthygdjyktugk mixed martial arts, a combat sport.
I think that a museum about the history of racism in America and housing these statues and explaining them could be a powerful experience.
There is a new museum centered around lynching that opened up
AmericanNohbuddy ™ I was thinking of something similar to that, but being generally about racism, covering Jim Crow, Slavery, the Civil War, etc.
I've visited a museum exhibit of nazi propaganda, and it could be something similar to that, but the trap we fall is that we are granting that each and everyone of these statues are historically significant. Some of these statues could be part of this exhibit. But the so called compromise position is unfeasible as that it wants all of this nonsense in museums and that's unnecessary to convey the point. It's a completely inefficient use of resources.
Not quite the same thing but there is a museum in Michigan dedicated to showing old racist paraphernalia
I atucal saw a video in high school, where it show a museum of african americans stereotypes and some jim crows laws signs. it quite interesting
Lauren "Data is just the plural of anecdote' Southern
Kolzi I'll never get over that statement
Yes, she's pretty. And if one's data was representationally gathered, a study that drew on that data could end up being scientifically sound. By coincidence. So what I'm saying is she's wrong on three levels, but could still end up being correct. After getting into a time machine, finding myself in my late 20s, and then while trying to befriend our favorite blonde, I would emphasize how she was right about this deal, and she was correct about this other thing, and hit the nail on the head when she got into this other situation...
@@tarico4436 I have a feeling any intelligence Lauren Southern may show is purely coincidence. Kinda like how we discovered rubber.
Let's be honest here, saying "its erasing history" is an excuse by these people to make themselves look better
I've noticed the anti-left outrage is mostly from people who are pro-Trump. I don't remember previous presidential candidates like Ted Cruz, John McCaine, and Mitt Romney being nearly as controversial or as hated as Trump
20:00 "That's called revisionist history, that's MARXISM" lmao he made my day.
When he said that all i heard was "Boing!" from the leap he made.
MARXIST SOROS FUNDED GLOBALISTS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
"Construct a statue of Osama Bin Laden in downtown Manhatten riding a horse and swinging a sabre."
*If it would get the 9/11 truthers to shut up...*
"non-Seqitor" If you want to impress others with your highschool debate clubs skills, orthography becomes kind of important. Plus, what exactly is the non sequitur? What is the argument, what are the premises, you are referring to, and who actually presented them? You don't care, you just like fancy words, and then you are too dumb to spell them correctly.
Also, they did not only "not agree" and "had issues", they killed a lot of people for their "idea" of ending the United States over an election result, they disagreed with, talking about the importance of upholding slavery in each of their war declarations.
Peter Smythe
We need statues of the Columbine shooters. Maybe the Virginia Tech shooter too
Matthew Chenault
Yeah they had issues with american ideals like following the law. Also the main argument around this stuff is that this is *history* therefore that is why these statutes are needed. As a reminder of what happened. How is it a non-seqitor to bring up that same argument for 9 /11 you idiot?
Scoring57
Wasn t there a right of seccession?
And it was an inner-american war over how the freedom of the constitution was to be seen (officially)
Son of the Black Rage
No it was an inner- racist cunt war (the fight against greedy money hungry racists), on whether or not they should be able to devoid other human beings of their rights. I think that matters too, a bit more than whatever the f*ck the law might have been. And also it was a war based on not following federal rule (again due to greed and also arrogance), not on any good reason for secession.
Can we start a petition for a Sojourner Truth statue in the south? I mean, Lauren said we want to remember the good...
No. Louis Armstrong.
Mike Moore him too
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Armstrong
Christopher Stanley I've always argued that Columbus Day should be replaced by Robert Shaw.
Shaw is an actual American, an actual hero, and him and Columbus share a birthday.
a hellenic pagan
John Brown. He stabbed that crap out of racists and died fighting injustice. We need to remember that. The *'good'* white people need to be remembered
i still want my statue to MC Ride
People who think these confederate monuments are about celebrating history probably also think “In God We Trust” was always on currency, “Under God” was always in the pledge, and that Columbus was always celebrated. They already don’t know history.
Dave Rubin is an intellectual featherweight
odin SAPSFORD just a featherweight
Wow. Must have taken you a long time to come up with such a stinging rebuttal!
Intellectual water boy.
He's a propagandist bankrolled by the Koch brothers.
Dave Rubin is one of the white moderates that MLK disliked.
Three Arrows: I am a bit late to the party
Me, two years later: OHH you had no Idea what was coming
It's even worse now.
*Tape rolls*
*Video footage of the insurrection is played*
I wonder if they have the same problem with the statues toppled when Sadam fell, or the Soviet Union fell, or the Wall fell, or Hitler fell, or when the Irish ripped down the statues of English folk after they claimed independence? To these people, history means forever enduring the gaze of those who fought to dominate you.
DahVoozel yeah, they've removed Lenin statues in Eastern Europe since the '90s now but the right doesn't care about that
Sir Jaojao Actually communism still has a follow-up in parts of Eastern Europe, - in the former USSR, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. It's for genuine reason too, indeed.
The Confederacy was not an ideology? I dunno... what would you call a world view that views other human beings in such a way that they can be bought and sold as property except a pro-slavery ideology? And it is very convenient that, despite being traitors to their countries, the leaders of the Confederacy were relatively lightly punished for their crimes against The Union. They were given ample opportunity to go forth and influence the future form of southern society with the core ideology that they fought for and sent humans to their deaths to defend. Putting people they considered inferior in chains.
Matthew Chenault But the statues aren’t dedicated to the efforts of Southerners during the Reconstruction
Matthew Chenault the USSR isn't an ideology either, neither is Nazi Germany. Both are historical states just like the confederacy, and all three of them had their own ideologies.
When people say “the civil war was about states rights”, the best response is “states rights to what?” Shuts them down every time lol
"Property rights"
Excellent analysis as always.
Living in Madrid over the last decade this issue was a constant, particularly over street names in the capital named after Nationalist generals and the tomb of Franco sitting in the Valle de los Caídos (a mega monument constructed by Republican prisoners on the outskirts of Madrid). Despite claiming that the monument represented *all* the dead of the civil war it was constantly used as a pilgrimage site by Fangalistas (fascists).
They seem to have sorted it out now though, finally. Franco's off to a catacomb where he belongs.
JP Coen heeft absoluut niks gedaan
The Conquistadores and Franco are completely different subjects: the first are a (very flawed by today standards) product of their time, the second is a brutal fascist dictator that took power from a democratic republic just short of three generations ago.
Now, as it's stated in the video, monuments must be taken within their context. If there are Conquistador statues in Latin America, they should absolutely be taken down out of respect for the remaining native population. In mainland Europe, these statues should be preserved, since they're part of our history.
We need to push back against this bullshit that the conquistadors were "people of their time." Tons of commentators from the same era viewed those men as treacherous, evil, greedy barbarians who had no respect for morality as then understood. The atrocities committed by the conquistadors were used as anti-Spanish propaganda throughout Europe in the 16th and 17th (hell even into the 18th-19th) centuries. Non-conquistador Spaniards (most famously Bartolemew de las Casas) who saw the results of the conquest were appalled. Not to mention actual slavery had been outlawed in Western Europe for a few centuries by the time guys like Cortez brought it back for the Native Americans.
There is no getting around it, the conquistadors were morally bankrupt people by the standards of ANY time period who got away with their evil because of the distance from authorities who could stop them (Spanish monarchs put out numerous decrees to try to curb the abuses of the colonizers that were all immediately ignored) combined with the immense wealth they got from theft and murder. Just because an atrocity happened in the past doesn't mean that people of that time period viewed the action as morally acceptable.
> _didn't he save Spain from communism_
What drivel. The communists of Spain were *Spanish* people, they were not invaders from outer space, you silly, silly person.
Apple Pie not to mention the popular front was far from just communist. And in the northern basque and catalan regions it was mainly anarchists organising and fighting against the fascists! People need to stop seeing 'le ebil gommunism' as one huge monolithic entity. Communism is a stateless moneyless and classless society,which has not been achieved by any of the self proclaimed 'socialist' states in the world. The left is diverse (and confusing) it would do people well to learn more about it.
He didn't save Spain from communism, of course as fascist he was very anticommunsit, but Spain was not about to turn into a communist regime any time. In the 39 general election, the party that won was a left coallition that included Republican (left moderates), Socialist and Communist, the reforms that they promised were social reforms without communism as the final goal (the leader Azaña was for social reform, but only for very minor economics reform). Also, remember than the Republic that the Franco regime ended was a Constitutional Republic with universal voting rights (for men and women), universal free education, serious measures against government corruption and electoral fraud, freedom of commerce, freedom of speech and assembly and generally what we expect of a modern western nation. So, no they didn't save Spain of communism, nor that was their real goal, but that was the goal that they presented in their propaganda and you know what, the propaganda of fascist dictorships maybe is not very trustworthy. If that was their goal, they wouldn't have killed prodemocratic school teachers. In reality, there was no immininent communsit revolution in Spain and all the parties in the left coalition vowed to uphold the Republic Constituion. Also some of the forces that supported the Republic were right wing nationalists parties (Lliga Catalana, a party backed by Catalan bankers and capitalists and PNV, a traditionalsit party)
The main different with Franco antisemitism to Nazi antisemitism is that 1) Spain did not have Jews ofr historical reasons, 2) was more religiously than racially motivated and 3) changed a lot due to international pressures (for example, they created the myth that Spanish government helped save thousand of Jews, after well, the allies won and they wanted not to be seen as former Hilter allies, which Spain certainly was, allthough inderectly). But phrases like "Judeo-masonic communist conspiracy" that he government speeches and propaganda used a lot doesn't really point to not being a "Jew hater".
And also again "El valle de los Caidos" was built with political prisoners under force labour to commemorate the same guys who actually fought to make them political prisoners.
None of the people saying "we must preserve history" seem to remember that this is what books are for.
When I want history, I dont go look at statues of folks I dont know, I find a book or an article.
Then they complain about “bias” or “Cultural Marxism” when they don’t like what’s in the books, so then they have to publish *their own books* with “A Patriot’s Guide to . . .. ” or “What Your Teachers Don’t Want You to Know....” in the title. Of course, that’s all assuming that at least some of these halfwits have even bothered to open a book since high school.
When these people use the word “education”, they probably have something in mind like a series of five-minute PragerU propaganda videos.
They don't want to preserve history but their own ignorance of history. A Robert E. Lee statue won't tell you that he owned slaves, or that he was not "kind to his slaves," or (more importantly) what the American Civil War that he fought in was about. The statue tells you almost nothing about the man and his times, and that's how they like it.
And it's not like the public place taken up by statues is squandered if you remove them. You can build statues to leaders of slave rebellions, to runaway slaves, to abolitionists, to Union officers. And maybe more effectively, at least if your target audience is white Southerners: statues to white Southerners who fought against the Confederacy.
@@Stamboul Hell, put up a statue of Newton Knight. Better than statues of Lee, Jackson, or, worst of all, Forrest.
Robert E Lee didn't even want Confederate statues!
They know books exist to record history, they just don't like to read.
Three Arrows rocks. I much enjoy the logical presentation of current and historic situations. Great work.
When Stonewall Jackson's direct descendants want his statue taken down you know something's up
@Yolo Swaggins I mean, these statues were basically put up to scare black people and preserve white supremacy. By taking them down we're putting that phase of our history behind us and moving forward.
Robert E. Lee’s great-great-great grandson also said, publicly, that the statues of his ancestor need to come down.
Thank you for being one of the few voices that brings actual academic history into the conversation.
Both sides of the argument did not bring this into the conversation. At least not Beyond surface level.
I used to agree keeping the statues for the sake of historical purposes. But you are right these statues Were Meant basically as a middle finger to the Civil Rights Movement. You change my mind on this subject in a logical and academic historical level. Thank you!
Should there be a statue to Benedict Arnold at West Point?
AmericanNohbuddy ™ No
Andy Clemens Exactly
bbonner422 I know and because it doesn't have his name they don't honor him. Same as the boot monument at Saratoga
Arnold is a tragic figure that SHOULD have taught us about taking care of our soldiers. I don't consider him nearly as bad as the fuckos that either helped rip the Union asunder, or directly assisted the people who tore the Union asunder. The US was barely a Nation at that point and we forget that MOST of the colonists weren't party to the Patriot movement. Being a "traitor" was being a Loyalist. In that situation, it's impossible NOT to be a traitor to someone - unlike the Confederates, particularly the slaveholding Aristocracy - who are the real group I have an issue with honoring and who have no sympathy from me. Regardless, the confederate statues were NEVER about history in the first place. They're not equivalent as examples in my opinion.
Disposable Email Without his name on it. It honors the part of him that sacrificed for the country
we don't want to destroy History, we just don't want to glorify it.
Funny Side note: If it's about "pReSeRvInG hIsToRy" than we should replace all the confederate statues with Grant and Sherman, with the depiction of burning buildings and sherman neckties (destroyed railroads); to PRESERVE the history of what happens when the South marches against the North.
"Take down Mt. Rushmore"
This but unironically. The Black Hills are sacred for the Sioux tribe and were stolen out from under them even after the US government promised they would keep it.
Yes!
They natives should suck it up
We know those guys only fought to defend scalping, so don't give us a bunch of "lost cause" myth.
We ought to tear down all their statues while sanctimoniously lecturing them about how they only put them up to oppress people. Then we should make fun of them for losing--especially to Sherman and his acts of terrorism.
darth rias gremory Mercia fuck yeah
Fay victus
I was long undecided whether Confederate monuments in the South should be preserved or not. I mean, any decent person would agree that the Confederates were scum... but still, monuments are history, and I don't support the destruction of art or statues no matter how much of a scumbag the subject of the piece was.
We know Nero was a tyrant, we known Henry VIII was voted as the worst monarch in British history for a good reason, we know Genghis Khan was infamous for a reign of terror... but despite all of those personas being absolute degenerates, I doubt anyone would suggest demolishing their monuments, right? I mean, the presence of their monuments does not in any way represent that anyone would like to resurrect them into power today.
However, here is why I've come to the conclusion that Confederate monuments should be demolished. Not only that, but I think the Confederate flag (or flags) should be banned from official use... just like the Nazi flag is not waved around Germany.
See, while the historical figures I've mentioned are well in the past and have no modern ideological claim... the Confederate ideology is still out there. I mean, it started not long after the end of the Civil War, and lasts to this day, the neo-Confederate ideology and the "Lost Cause" nonsense.
I've done my research in various political Facebook groups, and I was horrified to see how much there is an attempt to justify what the Confederacy did. Neo-Confederates attempt to push the "Lost Cause" narrative, claiming the Civil War was not about slavery but about "state rights"... they just omit the part how the "right" they were talking about was mainly the "right" to hold other beings as slaves.
All of the slave women raped, all of the men whipped, all of the abuse, the chains, the humiliation... nope, neo-Confederates conveniently cut it out.
And that ideology never stopped! The lynching continued well into the 20th century. In the 1920, the KKK peaked 6,000,000 members, that was Confederate ideology right there. The horrific segregation laws continued into the 1960s, and same was with the anti-miscegenation laws that literally had humans sent to prison for having interracial relationships.
But that didn't stop in the 1960s! In 2017, a violent rally took part in Charlottsville, Virginia, called "United the Right Rally" against the removal of Confederate monument. In the rally, Confederate and Nazi flags were waved.
The reason I support the removal of Confederate monuments is because that ideology, the horrific and vile ideology of slavery and the subjugating of other human beings, is still there! The dehumanisation of black people is still there. Those monuments are part of that ideology and are used to preserve it.
And you know what? I honestly understand where neo-Confederates are coming from... it's not easy to admit your ancestors were lowlife scum who fought to preserve slavery, so you create a new narrative. Will the descendants of Nazi soldiers try the same in the future? Who knows.
And yes, I know not all Confederate soldiers were for slavery, some were drafted against their will... and? So were many soldiers serving in the German Army in WWII. Your point is...? The ones with a moral compass deserted, and the ones with a moral compass and courage did what the great Newton Knight and the Free State of Jones did, and resisted the Confederate regime.
Those monuments need to be demolished, pretty much as we don't have Nazi monuments around today.
No black child should have to walk past a monument which was the gathering point of those who violently lynched his great uncle, and which still serves as a gathering point for those who lament the loss of the Confederacy and lament the abolition of slavery.
Very good comment right there mate !
Very well put, Maxim. The only issue I see is that the people who are here who need to read this will just skip over it, and probably call you a communist or something.
good shit.
You know DW Griffith and Woodrow Wilson were indirectly responsible for the resurgence of the KKK? Griffith directed THE BIRTH OF A NATION. Wilson showed it _in the White House_ and called it "History written by lightning."
Actually they've recently learned much more about Nero from Pompeii. It turns out he wasn't anywhere in near as bad as alleged by Tacitus. Tacitus definitely had an agenda because of his hatred of Rome as well.
In the United States we not only have statues of traitors placed in positions of honor, but we name army bases after them as well. What other country names army bases for traitors who took up arms against their own country???
An antisemitic rally that resulted in the death of a young woman was over the removal of a monument to a man who explicitly did not want any monument dedicated to him or the war he fought...
Revisiting this in 2020 - Just realized Thought Slime did some reading for you.
Also, screw 2020.
Screw the leftists apologizing for china
Isn’t Anthony Brian Logan the guy Destiny debated and said the KKK weren’t that bad ?
][ yep. The kkk brought toys to his grandma apparently lol
][ yup
Who signed that lakers jersey
Some Guy Shaq
][ that’s cool I think he’s probably the best big man ever
I'm from Tampa FL, where we used to have 2 schools named after Robert E. Lee. (only 1 now). The public school was renamed in 1943 to have Lee's name.
Where were these schools located? In predominantly black neighborhoods. Which leads me to wonder how many white Americans are familiar with the Double Victory Campaign.
"That is called Revisionist history, that's Marxism" That right there is Revisionist History.
There has been plenty of revisionist history in marxist (at least self-acclaimed) states, as has been in all totalitarian states. The US is an interesting example of a democracy engaging in all the same stuff, though.
I'm always confused about the lost cause thing.
Even if all the Southern soldiers were chivalric, noble warriors that drank sasperilla, said ma'am all the time and never wanted a war... it wouldn't matter. The South HAD SLAVES! I don't care what aesthetic they had, they OWNED PEOPLE!
They argues that slaves had their own culture which was destroyed by the north, and that living conditions were "mighty fine" for them. Zippity Doo Dah- from Song of the South, pretty good example.
In some places, it is still taught as the war of aggression. Even though the South attacked first lol
shinjinobrave whomp whomp
And you think the north didn't? The emancipation proclamation never freed anyone. Lincoln had slaves in the white house, but they were called servants...really. think about it.
Matthew Chenault The fact that the 13th Amendment was ratified literally in the same year as the south’s surrender is just a coincidence, eh? I know this sounds absolutely crazy, but Abraham Lincoln wasn’t going to force the only slave owning states that didn’t secede to give up their slaves while he’s in the middle of a bloody Civil War.
I love how the pizza hut ad cuts in at exactly the moment you say you're about to go to a Dave Rubin interview. For a second there I thought he'd got a new job.
I have another idea for the statues. For every Confederate "war hero" statue, add a bigger statue of Union General William Tecumseh Sherman
Right next to them, looking down
Because nothing shows culture like celebrating terrorism.
@@kenabbott8585 Dude stop commenting on all these old comments, we know youre just another confederate apologist who refuses to believe that the south were objectively bad guys in the civil war and were TRAITORS.
@@beepbooprandomcommenter2214
Dude, stop celebrating terrorism.
Yes, my refusal to believe blatant bullshit is quite evident.
Also the fact that this pisses you off.
Only if Sherman's swinging his giant dick around.
23:33 "You can find anything wrong with people whose... monuments are in our parks." "Public monuments of historical figures are not supposed to be idols that we celebrate and worship for their perfection." -- Lauren Southern
It's funny, because I agree with ALL of that! But she turns around and uses it as an argument in favor of her position, when it absolutely isn't. If every historical figure is imperfect and their likeness is not meant to be "worshipped," then why on Earth is she acting like tributes to them are sacrosanct, and the mere suggestion of removal is a threat against civilization itself? And also why are the monuments consistently created in a style that is framed in an inherently idolizing way? This country is really struggling with the notion of viewing these monuments as impeachable and impermanent, that's what this debate is about. But it's just the logical way of treating statues that were erected on public land, with very clearly divisive political intent.
They should replace all of the Confederate statues with statues of Thanos.
That is what everyone can actually agree on, thanos did bring balance
Is it inoffensive enough for me to make a joke about how if we were lucky, Thanos could have wiped out the bottom half of the US in his snap?
@@Boulder7685 Pls daddy thanos do this
He snapped his fingers and all the Confederate monuments vanished.
Perfectly balanced.
20:05 “That’s Marxism”
Lol, what the fuck man!? We really have our work cut out for us, don’t we? 😅
So the South was actually fighting for states rights, but when some Northern States did not want to return slaves who ran away the South pushed to to have the Federal government force those states to return the slaves. So the South wanted the states rights they supported, not states rights they didn't like. They really supported the rights for states to own slaves, with this right above any other they espoused. There are not many examples where so many people fought so hard to support such a despicable position as the right to keep humans as slaves.
There is only one place these statues deserve to be:
In a museum.
Or the battle fields. Which I guess or kinda museums.
Fun fact about George Washington: you can visit his damn house like 5 miles south of Old Town Alexandria
The Confederate constitution forbid any law ending slavery
Matthew Chenault During wartime, yes
LMAO this guy really just called slave revolts a bad thing cause the masters died.
Matthew Chenault Show me your "victim card" more you snowflake. Compared to most wars driven by monetary or land interests, the emancipation of a handful of people from those who kept them subjugated and owned them as literal property over the course of their entire lives isnt as morally disgustingly genocidal as youd try to make it. Identify the motive and stop crying cause people of your own skin color who owned others created the conditions for their violent downfall, especially when those who did it were the actual victims of violent and abusive system of slavery.
I advocate for slaves being the victims, not the owners. If you want to play apologist for unchangeable history be my guest, the death of the confederacy wasn't worth the death of the institution of slavery for you. Cant help but bleed your heart out for those who took part in it, should they have been gentle conformists or violent extremes of its atrocities. Just don't forget the confederacy was founded on the principle of white supremacy and their right to continue the institution of slavery into the new states that would be forming in the move to western territory.
Every confederate fought against his countryman cause they were appalled by the idea of racial equality (lol as if they even got it afterwards) and the collapse of their slave economy. The confederacy formed off these premises and only had one change to the constitution, an amendment to own slaves as a constitutional right.
Its hard to tell if you genuinely resent the end of slavery or you just have such a bleeding heart you cant justify any death in war, whatever the ends, causes or motives. You forget war is essentially forceful political action. I suggest you stop romanticizing slave owners and dubbing slaves violent savages for their revolts, their desperate attempts to seize their freedom.
You are so hell bent on playing a victim card, must be hard for your brainlet to comprehend the motives behind those actions and how a life of perpetual forced labor and suffering is bad, simply cause in some rare cases people got murdered cause of their association with those who owned the slaves.
Must be hard to think about how few slave uprisings actually happened compared to the slaves that lead full lives in that institution, how much mental anguish and physical abuse was inflicted to countless individuals to ensure their obedience and labor. You don't care about the suffering endured by the victims of the institution of slavery cause of an act of violent emancipation, that slaves who were denied any basic human dignity, who were at their wits end, who would be ready to die for their freedom rather than continue to endure the anguish of that institution.
Estimated 250 rebellions total in the US, the participants of those likely making a minute number of the total slave population at every point it occurred, a minute number compared to the 4 million slaves in the south before their emancipation, compared to the amount of slaves being treated like cattle since colonial days.
You genuinely value the owners more than the slaves, you are incapable of impartially viewing the huge amount of suffering ended, through a violent mean sadly, but that otherwise was not going to happen because the US would rather split itself than risk racial equality and a hit to the economy of human cattle.
The simplistic view of reality is yours (since you want to assume mine, I can only return the favor), where you are bent on categorizing races that have had no genuine data or even historical manifestation that can lead to the rational belief of racial supremacy. The only way an argument for racial supremacy is built is by sucking off the dated, debunked rhetoric of the slave owners, confusing correlation for causation and using your tiny brain to ignore sociology as a whole. Not to mention a lot of ego.
If youd be concerned with the murder of innocent people id like to see you defend the Native Americans this passionately, not to mention the Jews, the Arabs, the Vietnamese, the South Americans who endured US funded dictators and cold war proxy conflict bs.
As a direct descendant - from multiple lines - of at least 3 of the people to whom these monuments are commonly erected - yes. They should all come down. Every one of them should be removed. Teaching the history of racism in the United States does not require statues glorifying slavery, racism, and hatred. All the things named after them - all the roads, schools, public buildings - should be renamed. None of that will affect what is included in history books. Maintaining things like battlefields (Manassas or Gettysburg or Vicksburg, for example) or war hospitals or other similar actually historically relevant locations is sufficient - and can present the information in the light of historical scholarship rather than racist screed.
I live in VA - and in this state there are currently multiple armed forces installations named for confederate leaders, multiple roads named for them, many statues erected to them. But there is also the Manassas battlefield - and that does more to actually illuminate the history of the conflict than any of the other things mentioned. Keep that one.
Oh, and in re: slippery slope - okay. So what? Even if the slippery slope happens and ALL statues of individual leaders are removed - inclusive of Mt. Rushmore (Which is, absolutely, a monument of white supremacy, taking a sacred Native location and defacing it with images of the culture which killed and dislocated an enormous percentage of Natives. And it was done by a man with specific and clear ties to white supremacist groups, so this was no accident.), so what? No history is lost. The books and documents still tell the history. The battlefields still exist. If we took every single statue to any individual down, possibly replacing some with historical markers or ... I don't know, models of the water molecule... it would make no actual difference to historical knowledge.
Exactly. Recording history is done in books, not statues.
Just a note or correction for you, you showed the statue of general James Longstreet at 12:38. He fought for reconciliation after the war, joined the republican party, led a black militia in new orleans that defended against a white supremacist riot, and general served to dispel the notion of "the lost cause." I don't really see a problem with his statue.
Well heres the problem, that's basically the only statue of him. This is directly because of those actions you mentioned.
I was unaware that statues were our only way of telling history and you know, not museums or the internet... statues have always been around glorifying historical figures and their achievements.
I'm willing to compromise. Get an artist to remove the riders and keep the innocent horses.
this
Damn, from 5k to 44k, good job
As a conservative living in the US, I really appreciate this video. Great info. And i have to agree with you. I like where you draw the line for appropriately evaluating whether a statue should be removed.
Aiming for center, as you do, brings stability to these political questions that i feel is missing from both parties in America.
The flimsy arguments you had to debunk in this video are likely posed by conservatives simply because they dont trust democrats' motives and judgment.
By now, i think you can see why. Many legitimate. But many not.
I also cant help but point out that these monuments are protested by Democrats, when they were erected by Democrats, to honor Democrats. And somehow many Republicans feel the need to preserve them. *Visible confusion*
Awesome arguments and extremely relevant today in America when well over a hundred of these memorials have just been taken down.
Good ol' Dave "Counter Plaque" Rubin
Even better, we'll have a counter-counter plaque. To make sure all points of view are honored, just below the plaque there should be a another plaque explaining why the first plaque was put there and this was a bad idea. In the free market place of ideas, surely the best will rise to the surface!
@@TheSaltyLibrarian I say we need a full comprehensive history of the person, just to make sure the context is clear. We'll need a lot of space though, so probably 4 plaques - but really big ones. We can put one on each side, and to fit all the context in a legible font, they'll need to be say, the full width of the statue, and about 20 feet tall. I think that would be a reasonable compromise.
Imagine having a worse opinion than Joe Rogan on something
The only civil war related statue the confederate states deserve is one of a scowling General Sherman with the inscription: "You better behave or I will come back and finish what I started!"
Hmm, you might be right, the message probably would not be succinct enough.
A scowling General Sherman holding General Lee's gristly decapitated head up in a gesture of triumph in one of his hands ought to get the point across.
After Lincoln was assassinated, a statue of him should have been erected in every former Confederate State Capital along with a plaque of the Gettysburg Address. But in doing that, Johnson would have to have actually done some Reconstruction. But a statue of Sherman? Ok but only in Atlanta.
@Christopher Stanley Well said.
@@neillist5517 Shame Matthew there is a historical revisionist who desperately wants to pretend the obvious fact about why these statues were set up extremely hastily around the time of the civil rights movement isn't the truth, but it was just them "honoring their dead"
@Benjamin Figgins Can't wait to see how long it takes Matt there to descend into McCarthyism this time, if you want a laugh, check out the rest of this inept southerner's defenses of the confederacy and those propaganda monuments in this comment section
I don't know how getting rid of a hunk of rock is somehow going to make history "disappear".
If by paper you mean cheap dollar store paper, you get at a sleazy part of the ghetto. In which case not at all.
Matthew Chenault
Statues aren’t the same as history books pal. Statues are meant to celebrate people. They were never, EVER considered anything close to historical documents.
Matthew Chenault
Are you saying there is an academic conspiracy by the left to make it look like the civil war didn’t happen?
Matthew Chenault
And what exactly is in those statues that wouldn’t fit there narrative? Does the left not want people to know the confederates rode horses?
Matthew Chenault
But what would their narrative be? That no one ever liked the confederacy? That the confederacy didn’t exist?
They should replace Robert E Lee with a John Brown statue where he holds a rifle and the bible
Jenny of Westphalia or st. Olga of Kiev
I’d also like to see the historical description…amended, for lack of a better word. He’s usually depicted as a wild-eyed, slavering fanatic.
I Will never understand why people want the monuments deticated to traitors
yeah racist aside, why condiser yourself a patriot/nationalist if you keep on celebrating the confederate and traitors? so socialists are always traitors, but confederate aren’t not or at least re-think.
They don't see the confederates as traitors,duh. They spin themselves as continuing the legacy of the American Revolution .
@Polandgod 75
You can find people in Scotland who will wave both the Scottish and Union Jack flags, identifying with both, despite the fact that the UK and Scotland have historically fought one another and have been rivals. I imagine the sentiment is similar for Southerners.
Ok then, idiot. Remove all statues dedicated to American Revolutionary heroes.
Because they were patriots.
no one is destroying libraries, museums, or burning books so no one is destroying history. Just tearing down idiotic pointless statues that are really needed at all.
It's fitting that of all the reprehensible things Churchill was responsible for, the bombing of Dresden is what Lauren Southern chooses to focus on.
Remove confederate monuments, there are far greater people who deserve it. Some of whom would be despised by the confederacy.
Wasn't there a southerner who lead a charge and freed slaves who was then executed for it? I forgot his name but that dude was a legend, he deserves a bunch of statues.
@@cl570 John Brown. Fucking hero.
@@jameslanier2510 ah that’s the one! Indeed.
I like what Budapest did to the Soviet statues. They're at a park (called Memento Park) people can visit and buy memorabilia that make fun of the Soviet rule of Hungary under the Cold War. They aren't in a museum that commands authority where you have to whisper, but outside, where everyone can leisurely stroll and talk normally.
The CIA and Nazi role in the Soviet occupation?
What should we do with the statues erected to CIA agents?
Would you prefer the Nazi monuments weren't destroyed at the end of WW2? I'm not sure we could find them anymore.
And which color was used in Hungary?
Then it shouldn't be hard for you to answer my question. What color did they use in Hungary?
Die Stärke deines deutschen Akzents haut mich immer wieder vom Hocker. ;P Freue mich, dass sich ein Landsmann auf TH-cam für die linke Sache stark macht.
Sehr spezielle Marke "linker Sache", die reaktionären Propagandadreck verbreitet, und wer einen dermaßen dämlichen Akzent spricht, sollte lieber bei seiner Muttersprache bleiben.
I do love Dave’s ability to come up with ridiculous and fantastical solutions to things, especially since he’s a fan of “facts over feelings”
I was born in the south and have always been proud of our rebellious spirit and see the confederate battle flag as a symbol of our heritage rather than racism. I personally believe the civil war was a great period in America. Obviously not for the enormous loss of life or the fight to preserve slavery, but because it led to emancipation and reconstruction era civil and voting rights. It finally answered the question of slavery not addressed in our constitution.
I never supported segregation, the Klan, or Jim Crow, and always supported protests for rights and freedoms during the turbulent 60's as being a fight for equality. I hedged on removing our historical monuments because I see confederate Generals as great men of the great war that tried our nation and played a role in America becoming a, "more perfect union." If placing the monuments was an afront to civil rights, then take them down.
Having switched parties as recently as 2008 with the failure of "trickle down" economics, the rise of populist movements including MAGA and Christian nationalism, and the great division and talk of violence or even civil war if democrats win the next election, I am proud the democratic party carries the banner for the party of Lincoln and civil and voting rights. Republicans will not resurrect MAGA's lost American dream by leading us into fascism.
My solution to all those southerners who want to 'retain a connection to history' via Civil War monuments is to come to a compromise. They can have their Civil War general riding a horse statue. But that General will be Sherman. And it will be a remembrance of his march to the sea.
They won't want to take down Sherman statues in the south, right? Because that's our history!
That would be the equivalent, wouldn't it? Erecting a statue to William T. Sherman in downtown Savannah. I don't think people in the area would like that very much.
That would be kinda the point, wouldn't it?
Im much more concerned on them being kept to remember what went wrong in the past as a constant reminder. I wouldn't be opposed to adding a statue of Osama for people to be reminded of what happens with religeous extremism and all that jazz.
Yes. Build a giant Sherman statue on horseback in the middle of Atlanta. I'd give it half an hour of life before everyone knocks it over.
Achilleskneel I didn’t even know Robert Byrd even had a statue... yeah at that to the list. It stands for the same things the confederate statues stand for.
"But that General will be Sherman. And it will be a remembrance of his march to the sea."
We already have a commemoration for terrorism in New York.
I'd personally say there is three ways to deal with these statues:
1. If they are of little material and artistic value and hold little to no historic value beyond being lost cause tripe, scrap them.
2. If they are well made, have a history that justifies the effort and can be removed, give them over to a museum that is up to the task of adequately presenting them, where they can be displayed and the full context of their purpose and meaning can be explained.
3. If it isn't possible to move them or if there's no museum that will take them, turn their meaning into something positive by building educational sites around them. Install informational plaques (not little ones, big ones, all around them) and big info-tables, that tell a passerby who built them and what the malicious intent behind that was.
This has been done to great effect here in Germany and Austria with certain pieces of Nazi art and architecture. In essence: turn them from artifacts of the Lost Causers into sites that educate people on the evils of historic revisionism.
Dresden was a legitimate military target and the civilian casualties very much inflated.
It's funny that she picked that as Churchill's controversy when he's done much worse to India.
@@orangega1540 Brown people aren't human to them, 'member
I also went to Verdun and saw all those gravestones and the worst part, in my opinion was that, once you drive away from that field again, there's more, smaller grave yards at the side of the road for the next few kilometers. So you just saw this unimaginable number of dead people laid out in front of you and you've filed that memory away and want to drive back home or to your hotel or wherever but on the way... there's just more and more dead soldiers
Listening to arguments from US from 1/2 way across the globe, it all sounds so familiar regarding Lenin statues.
Well except calling people that oppose keeping those "Marxist". It would be pretty ironic if someone had done that.
I just wanted to say that I love how I heard you first pronounce the KKK as "Kook Klux Klan". It might not be what you've said, but I think it still fits.
The only history being removed here is the time it took to build the statues lol
He hates sjws so much he started believing in trickle down economics 5:51
How Lauren Southern is still relevant is beyond me
TheD2JBug She's a woman who agrees with the alt right , that's so rare that anyone who fills that void gets -paid- attention
Remember when she as a reporter for Rebel Media tried to paint the entire anti-Trump movement as being card carrying member of ANTIFA in an edited 'raw footage' video of the Trump inauguration protests? Pepperrdge Farms Remembers
only in your head. Trump usng tactics straight out of 30s Germany and people commenting on it? ... lol
Fixed that for you: "Also, Donald Trump is f̶o̶r̶c̶i̶n̶g̶ eating babies"
How's it going in your asylum, catering and accommodation fine?
Hans-Joachim Bierwirth Forcible separation of children, toddlers and babies from their parents and then interning them is fucking awful, and when the head of the agency responsible for these acts, ICE, resorts to the Nuremberg Defense to cover his ass, yeah it's real easy to compare this shit to 30s Germany.
Usually, when a regime is overthrown, the new government removes all the statues of the old one.
So, why isn’t that the case in the American South?
Makes you wonder.
Matthew Chenault:
Shut up, fascist.
@Matthew Chenault You awful, lying piece of shit. Those statues were built as a fuck you to the freed slaves that became de facto slaves under sharecropping and Jim Crow. There was nothing reconciling or atoning in those explicit monuments to the failure of Reconstruction
"Americans removing statues of Saddam Hussein."
*Orders new statues of Saddam Hussein built in Kurd-majority northern areas of Iraq.*
Standing in Dachau was one of the most visceral feelings I’ve ever experienced. More people need to see these historical places.