The Political is Personal.

Submitted by detroitmechworks on Fri, 08/18/2017 - 10:32am

So, I've alluded to this a few times, but I think I need to come completely clean so people can understand where I'm coming from. I'm not trying to brag or elevate my status, just state the truth as I see it, and accept the judgement of others based upon that.

I am a descendant of slave owners. I can trace my matrilineal line to the Custis Family of Virginia, specifically to the children of Daniel Custis, Martha Washington's 1st Husband. Daniel Custis was a slave owner and landowner in Virginia.

I do not know how the slaves were treated on his property. There are varying accounts based off many different sources. However, there is one point that almost all records agree on, which was that the Custis family had a tradition of freeing all slaves upon the death of the owner. Admittedly it's an extremely Roman family tradition. (Nearly every member of the family was classically educated.) Roman tradition considered the freeing of slaves to be a display of wealth, and magnanimous behavior towards their subjects. Does this free them from the sin of slavery? Absolutely NOT. However it does show that the family was well aware of the historical context, and how slavery was maintained and executed in the past.

The criticisms of slave owning are correct. Slave owning is an abhorrent practice that I find reprehensible. I will not apologize however, for my ancestors behavior, as they are far from the only people who engaged in it. Slavery still exists to this day, for the same reasons. Cheap labor. Today we do it under the veneer of law, claiming that the slaves are "Prisoners" or "Migrant Workers" or "Vital Skilled Workers" or any other euphemism that lets the owners sleep at night and hide their sins behind the veneer of legality. Lest we forget, Southern slavery was legal, and protected by the constitution.

I had family on both sides of the civil war. One of my middle names is Barton. Yes, that one. Clara Barton is a relation on my father's side. However, I will take no credit for the elimination of slavery, when my ancestors also fought on the northern side of the war.

So, how did I get here? Well, My mother's family moved west after the war, eventually settling in Colorado and California. My father's family had a long tradition of serving in the US Army. My mother's family has a long tradition of raising sheep and teaching. Slavery, and the loss of property was a long time in the past.

So, all I'm trying to say is that when folks drag up the "Founding Fathers" and "The Confederacy" as pure evil who must be denigrated, you're talking about my personal ancestors. I don't judge for ignorance, because that's how I was raised, and have always attempted to live up to the ideals rather than the sometimes ugly reality.

Now, I admit I have a few tendencies that are considered throwbacks. For example, I believe in Noblesse Oblige. That term has been tainted by the idea that it somehow means that I think I'm better than others. It doesn't. Noblesse Oblige means I'm required to use my privileges, however small they might be, to help those without. I did not ask or feel that I deserve the gifts that society and luck have given me. I even feel guilty getting my military pension for my time in the war.

I hope that by disclosing this, it puts a face to those who might stand up for a statue, even with the historical warts. Not every single person who stands for the past is an evil person who wants to destroy the progress that we have made. By painting us thus, it simply drives us all further apart.

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehPUJKk2_dg]

Edit: I accidentally confused a name which I corrected.

Tags:

family

Personal

explanation.

Vote

Comments

Submitted by dkmich on Fri, 08/18/2017 - 11:57am

I am not sure how to respond.

I would urge you not to internalize any criticism you might hear. Others do not have a personal connection to the past, or if they do, do not see it personally as you do. It isn't ignorance, it is the relationship and the feelings it engenders.

Noblesse Oblige means I'm required to use my privileges, however small they might be, to help those without.

I do not feel this way. I believe that god helps those that help themselves and that's saying a lot for an atheist. Does this mean I am free to ignore the people in need around me? Not totally, or sometimes yes. It means that they have a responsibility to help themselves, and I have the choice to help them or not. Choosing to come to the aid of my fellow man is not an obligation, it is a good deed. They are not entitled, and I am not obligated. I choose to help those in need and able to benefit.

I doubt that anyone here thinks you are evil. You are no more responsible for the good or the bad in your family's history than a parent is for a child who is good at sports.

—

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Submitted by detroitmechworks on Fri, 08/18/2017 - 11:42am

Thanks for the honest response.

@dkmich I will endeavor to do so. Just after hearing the same things over and over again, I sometimes feel the need to state unequivocally where I stand on the matter.

—

I do not pretend I know what I do not know.

Submitted by dkmich on Fri, 08/18/2017 - 12:03pm

Let me add.....

@detroitmechworks

What you feel doesn't make me wrong, and what I feel doesn't make you wrong. We are each entitled and responsible for our own feelings, not each others.

—

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Submitted by irishking on Fri, 08/18/2017 - 3:21pm

the truth is not in contradiction with itself.

@dkmich

Submitted by Wink on Fri, 08/18/2017 - 4:02pm

My descendents, from what

@detroitmechworks
I've always heard (from people who are now long dead) were "thieves and thugs" from Scotland and Ireland, eventually sent to Canada with a "good riddance, don't bother coming back." Could be, I'm not going to bother with Ancestry.com to find out becuz I really don't care, couldn't care less. If that's my "ancestry" so be it, but my grandfather was an honest hard working man, as was my father. That's as far back as concerns me. Some dead relative that lived 150 years ago has zero to do with my life today, save for the DNA passed along. Sonsabitches gave me Ivan's red hair and pimples. Thanks alot. And, thank Father Time for turning my red hair white and pimples mostly faded into the sunset.

—

the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.

Submitted by detroitmechworks on Fri, 08/18/2017 - 4:33pm

Only reason I know it is because of my Grandmother.

@Wink Incredible woman who passed last year.

Was a social worker for 20 years in Seaside, CA, while her husband taught History at Monterey High school. (Oh, and HIS family were English and Prussians who left Prussia prior to the Unification under Bismark, so I really scored big in the "People who everybody hates" department.)

More than anything else, it's the reason I can't deal with the extremely black and white retelling that passes for history these days. Every story has more than one side, and by claiming that any side is COMPLETELY INVALID, it says more about the person shutting down the speaker.

—

I do not pretend I know what I do not know.

Submitted by Meteor Man on Fri, 08/18/2017 - 11:42am

All Is Forgiven

As if anyone requires my opinion or approval about whether or not they are good people. If you think you got problems, check this out:

With the rise of spit-in-a-cup genetic testing, there's a trend of white nationalists using these services to prove their racial identity, and then using online forums to discuss the results.

But like Cobb, many are disappointed to find out that their ancestry is not as "white" as they'd hoped. In a new study, sociologists Aaron Panofsky and Joan Donovan examined years' worth of posts on Stormfront to see how members dealt with the news.

Holy moly in a Petrie dish!

http://www.alternet.org/right-wing/white-nationalists-are-flocking-genet...

—

"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn

Submitted by detroitmechworks on Fri, 08/18/2017 - 11:48am

Oh, I'm pretty sure there's some ashkenazi

@Meteor Man in there somewhere...

At least my recently departed grandmother always claimed.

—

I do not pretend I know what I do not know.

Submitted by TheOtherMaven on Fri, 08/18/2017 - 1:36pm

Time was the south knew better than this "racial purity" shit

@Meteor Man
because everybody knew that no one's bloodlines were "pure". That was before the rise of eugenics and other insane racist ideas....

—

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

Submitted by Ellen North on Sat, 08/19/2017 - 10:34pm

@Meteor Man

@Meteor Man

ROFLMAO! How about 'purest Neanderthal' in the stereotypical sense?

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by lizzyh7 on Fri, 08/18/2017 - 11:50am

Yes indeed, politics is the personal.

And that, to me, is indeed part of the whole discussion, or should be, of these stupid war memorials to the CSA. I for one think it is most likely highly personal when a descendant of slaves has to see, in public displays and sometimes in public celebrations of, monuments to a war fought to ensure their own slavery in perpetuity. I can't let that go. I'm not saying in any way I have all the answers or know anything about personally experiencing being black, but I was interracially married and I do indeed remember the racism directed not only at me, but at my ex husband too. And there's a particular kind saved just for the white woman in that relationship, you know, people think all kinds of ugly shit about that. And had I had a child, that child would be black. So when I think about just what my own child, had I had one, would think about these war memorials, well, I'm sorry, but that is highly personal. And it does indeed color my own political views.

As for owning slaves, that really was not my focus in any comments I've made or in this remark either. As arendt put it in her awesome response, it is the Confederacy and what it represents that are the problem, IMHO. And you as a descendant of slave owners cannot control that any better than the descendant of a slave.

As for all this statue talk being a mere diversion, sure it is, but as you so rightly point out, a very personal one for many people. On both sides of the argument.

—

Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur

Submitted by detroitmechworks on Fri, 08/18/2017 - 11:58am

And when we can honestly and openly discuss

@lizzyh7 it does far more to heal than any amount of shaming or invective can.

The deliberate removal of context and the attempt to turn it into a literal black versus white issue is quite deliberate, in my opinion.

Thank you for your honest and open response.

—

I do not pretend I know what I do not know.

Submitted by ghotiphaze on Fri, 08/18/2017 - 12:05pm

If you validate your self worth

on other people's judgement, you're probably doing it wrong.
I understand where you're coming from, though. Sometimes external forces conspire to position you into less than favorable choices. My middle class upbringing was because Dad worked in the oil industry and family farms on both sides have oil. I was glad getting that monthly royalty check as I was pretty poor starting out in life, even knowing what a bad business oil is.
I got a good paying job at Cessna. But, I never for a minute fooled myself into thinking biz jets are nothing more than a means for CEOs to cheat on their spouses.
Back to being poor I shop at Walmart, since shopping anywhere else in this small town costs 10-25% more per item. I hate funding those aholes but I prefer it to starving.
My heritage is German so it can be argued I'm responsible for the Vandals, Goths, two world wars, the Holocaust, and the current crop of colostomy bags of WS BS. I acknowledge the connection, I don't embrace it.
However, I'd give a lot more credence to the 'Southern Heritage' argument had the monuments and Stars and Bars been displayed in the 1870s and 1880s instead of the 1950s just when the colored were getting uppity wanting things like fair pay, decent housing, ability to go to school, sit in a restaurant or theater,or occupy a motel room. Face it, the monuments and flags are nothing more than a 'in your face, neener neener'.
I wouldn't want to be constantly reminded of the sins of my people, so I don't fly the swastika. And I won't apologize for anyone who does.

—

There is no such thing as TMI. It can always be held in reserve for extortion.

Submitted by edg on Fri, 08/18/2017 - 12:23pm

The timing of the memorials.

@ghotiphaze

The South was still under Reconstruction in the 1870s. Statues and memorials required approval of the carpetbagger government, and that approval was hard to come by.

In fact, the vast majority of memorials were constructed between 1890 and 1920, not in the 1950s as you claim. Reasons varied, but much of it was driven by the aging and dying off of Civil War veterans and their offspring and a desire to memorialize and glamorize the war. A lot of Northern memorials were built during those years, too. In addition, the Spanish-American War and World War I engendered a lot of patriotic fervor and jingoism. Nothing like a good war to get the testosterone flowing.

Submitted by ghotiphaze on Fri, 08/18/2017 - 3:03pm

You might want to read

@edg http://m.theweek.com/speedreads/718507/striking-graphic-reveals-construc...
Graphing the when and why of Confederate monuments.

—

There is no such thing as TMI. It can always be held in reserve for extortion.

Submitted by edg on Fri, 08/18/2017 - 4:29pm

I have read that.

@ghotiphaze

It draws erroneous conclusions. I stated the reasons for the 1890-1920 peak in my original comment. In addition to those I listed, the 50 year anniversary occurred 1911-1915. And the peak in the early 1960s is from the centennial of the Civil War.

You can't believe everything you read on the Internet, and The Week is no exception.

Submitted by FuturePassed on Fri, 08/18/2017 - 5:18pm

You draw erroneous conclusions.

@edg
The end of reconstruction coincided with the growth of the KKK and tremendous violence to brutalize and intimidate black people. Oh, and the statues taken down in the middle of the night in Baltimore earlier this week were put up in the mid-1940s. MD fought on the union side! Those statues symbolized a commitment to Jim Crow and a determination to keep black Americans second class citizens.

Submitted by detroitmechworks on Fri, 08/18/2017 - 5:23pm

I think the possibility exists for both motives to be in play.

@FuturePassed The greatest films of all time were made to be a beautiful expression of human emotion and dignity... and to make money.

The statues could have been a respectful tribute in a time of war to the veterans of the past, AND some other asshole could have wanted one because he hated black folk.

—

I do not pretend I know what I do not know.

Submitted by edg on Fri, 08/18/2017 - 6:01pm

Your claims are unsupported by the data.

@FuturePassed

Look at the chart cited by The Week. Reconstruction ended in 1877. There wasn't much memorial activity until the late 1890s. And the peak of monument building was 1911, which was the 50th anniversary of the start of the Civil War. Your claim has no merit.

For another example, look at the minor peak from 1961 to 1965. This peak coincides with the 100th anniversaries of the Civil War, which were 1861 through 1865.

Consider this: The Civil Rights Act passed in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act passed in 1965. Those 2 laws are hated by white supremacists. Yet Confederate memorial building slowed dramatically after 1965. It would have increased if there was any correlation between statue building and civil rights. Again, your claim has no merit.

Oh, and you're trying to mislead by claiming the Baltimore statues were erected in the 1940s. Only one of them was, the Lee/Jackson statue. The other three were erected in 1887, 1903 and 1917.

Submitted by peachcreek on Sat, 08/19/2017 - 12:24am

Another data point can be found in the Guardian.

@edg here.

There is a bit from a University of Oregon professor that agrees with some of what you say, but not all. At least from my reading. See what you think.
Here's some:

But like most of the other monuments to the confederacy’s “lost cause”, the statue in Charlottesville was not built in the immediate aftermath of that war. Rather, it was commissioned more than half a century later in 1917, and erected in 1924.

It was part of a wave of statue-building in the south that took place between the late 1890s and 1920, according to research from the Southern Poverty Law Center. That wave crested in about 1911.

There was another, later, flurry of statue-building in the 50s, and around this time the Confederate battle flag became a popular symbol. In that decade and the next, some southern states, such as Florida, changed their flags to more closely resemble the standard of southern defeat.

According to Joseph Lowndes, a political scientist at the University of Oregon and author of two books on the US’s racial politics and the south, the timing of these enthusiasms is not accidental. “The statues go up in moments of racial reaction.”

The earlier craze was the moment when Lowndes says, “the Jim Crow order was really being built in the south”. So-called Jim Crow laws formally segregated public schools, public transport and public spaces generally in former confederate states. Laws mandated that black people and white people use separate restaurants, toilets and drinking fountains.

According to Lowndes, the Jim Crow phenomenon was a reaction to the inroads made by the populist movement, which had fleetingly created political alliances of poor blacks and whites against the rich southern planter class.

Submitted by edg on Sat, 08/19/2017 - 12:49pm

@peachcreek

@peachcreek

"That wave crested in about 1911." In other words, the 50th anniversary of the start of the Civil War.

There's no denying some Confederate symbology was adopted in response to civil rights gains. But Occam's Razor should be applied. There were peaks around the 50th and the 100th anniversaries of the war. That's a much simpler and more logical explanation than some contorted association with Jim Crow laws. As I noted, white supremacists believe the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act were the two worst laws ever passed in the United States. Memorial building would not have slowed to a crawl after 1965 if there weren't a strong correlation with the 100th anniversary of the war.

Submitted by TheOtherMaven on Sat, 08/19/2017 - 1:26pm

And we just had the 150th anniversary

@edg
and tempers are running high again. Coincidence? I don't think so.

—

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

Submitted by Ellen North on Sun, 08/20/2017 - 7:16am

@peachcreek

@peachcreek

...According to Lowndes, the Jim Crow phenomenon was a reaction to the inroads made by the populist movement, which had fleetingly created political alliances of poor blacks and whites against the rich southern planter class.

Interesting, and thanks! That pretty much says it all, right there, doesn't it?

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by native on Fri, 08/18/2017 - 3:11pm

Wars and memorials go hand in hand.

@edg
If we didn't fight so many wars, we wouldn't need to erect so many memorials to them. Then once we build the damn things, everybody is stuck looking at them for god knows how long. There are plenty of other things we might choose to commemorate, other than wars and war heroes, but those seem to have been perennial favorites.

Perhaps it's time to initiate a new War on Racism, as a sort of follow up to the currently defunct War on Poverty. However at the moment, Our Nation is busy trying to provoke a nuclear war with Russia. It's hard imagine what kinds of monuments might get erected to honor that one. Meanwhile, everyone can stay busy quarreling about whether Robert E. Lee was a war hero or not.

—

native

Submitted by detroitmechworks on Fri, 08/18/2017 - 3:14pm

Carlin summed that one up DECADES ago...

@native [video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lncLOEqc9Rw]

Amazingly, the topic hasn't shifted an inch.

The crystallization of national discourse seems to have ended with Reagan...

—

I do not pretend I know what I do not know.

Submitted by thanatokephaloides on Fri, 08/18/2017 - 2:36pm

Deutsche

@ghotiphaze

My heritage is German so it can be argued I'm responsible for the Vandals, Goths, two world wars, the Holocaust, and the current crop of colostomy bags of WS BS. I acknowledge the connection, I don't embrace it.

Instead, embrace responsibility for wurst, lager-bier, kase, sauerkraut, wienerschnitzel, Leibniz, von Riemann, Heine, Handel, and von Beethoven!

—

"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

Submitted by ghotiphaze on Fri, 08/18/2017 - 2:56pm

I'll take Leibniz,

@thanatokephaloides Handle, and von Beethoven. Keep the sour kraut--i can't stand that stuff

—

There is no such thing as TMI. It can always be held in reserve for extortion.

Submitted by Timmethy2.0 on Fri, 08/18/2017 - 3:55pm

99 Luftballons too

@thanatokephaloides

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=La4Dcd1aUcE]

—

Beware the bullshit factories.

Submitted by thanatokephaloides on Fri, 08/18/2017 - 4:23pm

Und Kraftwerk!

@Timmethy2.0

[video:https://youtu.be/okhQtoQFG5s]

[video:https://youtu.be/x-G28iyPtz0]

—

"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

Submitted by thanatokephaloides on Fri, 08/18/2017 - 2:42pm

A proverb detroitmechworks should consider:

"There is no king who has not had a slave among his ancestors, and no slave who has not had a king among his. "
-- Helen Keller
source

—

"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

Submitted by detroitmechworks on Fri, 08/18/2017 - 3:01pm

As I said, not trying to brag.

@thanatokephaloides Just trying to give perspective.

—

I do not pretend I know what I do not know.

Submitted by rachael7 on Fri, 08/18/2017 - 3:41pm

I Couldn't Disagree More

The confederacy were literally traitors to the United States. They left it. And they lost. We don't put up monuments to losers or traitors, and we shouldn't put them up for people who fought to the death for the right to own other human beings. You can put as much lipstick on it as you want, but "southern heritage" is slavery. The confederacy was traitorous. You can't rewrite that history.

Submitted by detroitmechworks on Fri, 08/18/2017 - 4:14pm

That is an extremely simple reading of history.

@rachael7 And we most certainly do put up media monuments to losers and traitors who engage in the slave trade under the veneer of legality....

But enough about the Clintons.

—

I do not pretend I know what I do not know.

Submitted by FuturePassed on Fri, 08/18/2017 - 5:33pm

I prefer to think of it a a concise summary. n/t

@detroitmechworks

Submitted by thanatokephaloides on Fri, 08/18/2017 - 4:43pm

Treason

@rachael7

The confederacy were literally traitors to the United States. They left it. And they lost.

More to the Constitutional point, they "were literally traitors to the United States" because they levied war against the United States:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

-- US Constitution, Article III, Section 3

Now, I don't know how things would have resulted if the Fort Sumter incident had been allowed to have been peacefully resolved. But it wasn't; South Carolina fired on it, and, as they say, the rest is history.

And the central fact here is that the Confederate States did that for one reason only: to insure that black Americans remained at the same status as livestock, as sheep or cattle or horses. And raised monuments to glorify their treason after it failed.

I'm still uncertain how I feel about those monuments. On one hand, I have everything we've discussed above, On the other hand, I don't want any part in repeating the injustices of Bamiyan.

It is a quandary, as detroitmechworks correctly points out. Those unrepentant Confederates are still our countrymen, but......

—

"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

Submitted by detroitmechworks on Fri, 08/18/2017 - 4:58pm

There were other reasons.

@thanatokephaloides Slavery was a prime reason for the war, but not the only reason that people fought for the Confederacy.

It doesn't matter if you don't believe that.
Those who believe in the goals of the Confederacy do.

Most of the time, they totally also agree with you on slavery as a plague on mankind. (If they don't, you were never gonna convince em.)

If we are ever going to make our hatred of slavery into something positive, we need to turn that energy on the people who still practice it. The PIC, for example. Walmart. Factory farms that depend on "Migrant Workers" (All the benefits of slavery, none of the responsibility!)

By focusing on the statues, it is like claiming that the sin will be washed clean through destruction. The sin is NOT in the past. It's STILL HAPPENING, and the US government creates it. Libya, anyone?

—

I do not pretend I know what I do not know.

Submitted by thanatokephaloides on Fri, 08/18/2017 - 6:36pm

this!

@detroitmechworks

If we are ever going to make our hatred of slavery into something positive, we need to turn that energy on the people who still practice it. The PIC, for example. Walmart. Factory farms that depend on "Migrant Workers" (All the benefits of slavery, none of the responsibility!)

—

"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

Submitted by ChezJfrey on Sat, 08/19/2017 - 1:11am

@rachael7

@rachael7
Traitors, eh?

The bizarre schizophrenia of U.S. citizens. So many revile traitors, yet every July 4, those same people will glorify and celebrate traitors; those glorious 'founding fathers' were English citizens, ya know?

And what does nearly every therapist counsel? Nobody and nothing can 'make' you mad; YOU are the only person that can elicit a response. So what if there are Lee statues about? Who freakin' cares? I think the U.S. flag is one of the most despicable patterns of cloth on the planet. For decades, U.S. government institutions have engaged in war action, producing rape, slaughter and decimation of people and lands that we have no quarrel: Vietnam, Cambodia, Libya, Iraq, Korea, Syria, Guatemala, Honduras, etc. When Japan essentially slapped the pointed weapon out of U.S. hands (i.e. military naval fleet in Hawaii), the U.S. response was to annihilate two cities of civilians for attacking our precious soil, killing soldiers...never mind the fact that Hawaii was not even 'ours' at that point as it wasn't even a sovereign state and we had stolen it from its native population.

Yet, despite my being reviled by the U.S. flag, my neighbor flies one in his yard and I don't give a shit that he does so. I also don't give a shit about a General Lee statue. It has no effect on my life because I don't allow it to have an effect. That is how a healthy person lives; I can't control others, I can only control my reaction. I use these things I don't care for as a teachable moment; I learn from them and live according to what I've learned.

U.S. history is rife with unpleasant and despicable things. Often, those things are memorialized, after a whitewash of their real historical significance; Lee is no exception, as is Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, etc. We can't change that history. Some people will glorify and mythologize aspects that are hardly worthy. So what? You can debate it, but in the end, regardless of outcome, like it or not, you can't impose your position on a community that decided to memorialize Lee just because you spout traitor. Even if you continue to shout they 'lost' and therefore they get no say...because somehow in your mind you are the arbiter of all that is just. You're not, and in the end, it doesn't really matter, anyway.

Just because a Lee statue stands, does not make the community it resides a racist backwater. If that were the case, every school, library, government building, bridge, ball field, park, and over half the households I see are despicable racists flying red, white and blue...just look at what the U.S. has done in our name during the last 60+ years across the globe to see the 'exceptional' Western white supremacy in action.

The real problem, is that last sentence...this entire nation, either through apathy, powerlessness, likely a combination of both, has somehow allowed our government institution to impose a delusion of supremacy over the entire planet and other sovereign nations, for years, killing and destroying. That mindset and machinery is what needs to be fought. A Lee statue, with a handful of so-called neo-Nazis, is chump change hardly worth notice, in comparison to the devastation wrought by the overarching supremacy complex being flexed by U.S. government institutions.

Submitted by CS in AZ on Fri, 08/18/2017 - 5:16pm

Ancestry

My mother was an unwed 16 year old girl, my father a mystery sperm donor as far as I'm concerned, I never met him or knew anything about him. My mother was a dysfunctional child, who was raised by a dysfunctional single mom herself. Alcoholics, physical and sexual abusers, suicide, abandonment - all these appear in my family within my very own lifetime. I don't have to look back 150 years to find really screwed up relatives. I know that my maternal grandfather was Irish. That is literally all I know about my ancestors or longer-term family history, which I have absolutely no connection to. I always called myself a mutt, and basically grew up feeling like an ordinary, unremarkable and unwanted street dog. I have no roots whatsoever, other than those I've planted and grown myself over my own lifetime.

Thus it is very difficult for me to relate to feeling personally connected to, much less any responsibility for, the actions or lives of people who inhabit one's family tree from so long ago. All I can say is that in my opinion, you are you, and you are not responsible for long-dead relatives. Whatever they did, whether it was good or bad, evil or saintly, it doesn't reflect on you.

What you do with your own life is the only thing that matters, and even there I think anyone over the age of about 40 or so (if not sooner) would probably have some words with our younger selves about things we did, or failed to do, either out of ignorance or stupidity or laziness or whatever. I try not to hang on to guilt over wrongs I committed 30 years ago. I'm sure not going to borrow any more burdens by digging into my ancestry to see what they did and feel either guilt or pride about those particular strangers.

I don't imagine that helps you, even though I wish it could, to separate your identity from family that were significant figures during a time of great upheaval. But in my view, they don't matter at all to who you are now. I'll apologize in advance if that offends you, as that is definitely not my intention.

Submitted by detroitmechworks on Fri, 08/18/2017 - 5:27pm

No offense taken.

@CS in AZ And am just about to hit 41, so I strongly identify with that comment about telling the past self some well chosen words...

I appreciate your words, and the spirit with which they were written.

My mother was an unwed 16 year old girl, my father a mystery sperm donor as far as I'm concerned, I never met him or knew anything about him. My mother was a dysfunctional child, who was raised by a dysfunctional single mom herself. Alcoholics, physical and sexual abusers, suicide, abandonment - all these appear in my family within my very own lifetime. I don't have to look back 150 years to find really screwed up relatives. I know that my maternal grandfather was Irish. That is literally all I know about my ancestors or longer-term family history, which I have absolutely no connection to. I always called myself a mutt, and basically grew up feeling like an ordinary, unremarkable and unwanted street dog. I have no roots whatsoever, other than those I've planted and grown myself over my own lifetime. Thus it is very difficult for me to relate to feeling personally connected to, much less any responsibility for, the actions or lives of people who inhabit one's family tree from so long ago. All I can say is that in my opinion, you are you, and you are not responsible for long-dead relatives. Whatever they did, whether it was good or bad, evil or saintly, it doesn't reflect on you. What you do with your own life is the only thing that matters, and even there I think anyone over the age of about 40 or so (if not sooner) would probably have some words with our younger selves about things we did, or failed to do, either out of ignorance or stupidity or laziness or whatever. I try not to hang on to guilt over wrongs I committed 30 years ago. I'm sure not going to borrow any more burdens by digging into my ancestry to see what they did and feel either guilt or pride about those particular strangers. I don't imagine that helps you, even though I wish it could, to separate your identity from family that were significant figures during a time of great upheaval. But in my view, they don't matter at all to who you are now. I'll apologize in advance if that offends you, as that is definitely not my intention.

—

I do not pretend I know what I do not know.

Submitted by Bollox Ref on Fri, 08/18/2017 - 8:11pm

Hey!...

I'm a direct descendant of Charlton Heston, who led the reconquest of Spain, which really pissed the Moors off.

I have a massive target on my back.

—

Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.

Submitted by Ellen North on Sun, 08/20/2017 - 9:22am

We all are, ultimately,

We all are, ultimately, related to each other and if we go back far enough, we all have some pretty sucky ancestors, some of which may well stand out a Horrible Examples in history. (I have some absolutely appalling nasties in mine - including indirect descent from Ferdinand and Isabella of the Spanish Inquisition - and was also horrified to learn that we have a distant relationship to the existing Bush family, who seem to have had much of that same mentality...) It may help if you go back to the origin of simple organisms and be happy that we ourselves are not bubonic plague or Tyrannosaurus Rex or psychopathic people who look at the pathology of the Nazis and decide that we'd like to be able to do such horrible things to others with impunity ourselves...

Although what's resulted in you from your ancestry and life experience is an important voice and viewpoint, carrying perception and informed strength; good people try to do good with what they have and I expect that there are a great many readers other than myself who are very happy that you are exactly as you are.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.