PC Gone Too Far

Well, okay, but if you're going to treat those labels as definitely implying motivation, what labels do you propose using when not implying any motivation? Non-Northerners and non-Unionists? Not very catchy. Sounds good to me.--Percy

Just found an image of one of the early designs for Stone Mountain: I kind of like it better.--Percy

I specifically listed factors regarding Davis, and to this point I have specifically mentioned Davis as undeserving of worship. Based on that I don't have to defend why Lee and Jackson should not be there. If you think those folks are in identical positions, then perhaps you should do a bit of research. But I'm not making that case. I disagree. For example you did say this: Continuing along the same vein. How about the significant number of colored folks who served as slaves. Were those folks not southerners? Is there some reason that their opinions and numbers don't count? Beyond that, your numbers game is irrelevant. And your reasons for discounting the opinions of their peers that slavery was evil are, in my opinion, ridiculous. Yes there was UDC activity before the Klan involvement. But the UDC at that point in history was yet another group of white supremacists. Did your research reveal the role of James Venable or William Simmons or the inspiration from 'The Birth of a Nation? Did I not list some of them in my post? I see that I did.Regarding Davis:Did Jefferson Davis own over 100 slaves?
Was Jefferson Davis an avid white supremacist who defended extensively in writing the idea that former Africans had no rights and should have no rights?
Davis on the cause of the civil war:

quote:

---

said that his state had seceded because "She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races."

---

Seriously, given your description, it cannot be that Davis was being celebrated for his great performance during the civil war, something that might instead by an attribution for Jackson or Lee. A better case can be made for Davis being inept. Okay...I cannot believe you failed to find anything objectionable about Davis during your research or that you cannot distinguish between Davis and say Robert E. Lee. I'm not going to help you with that beyond my current comments. Perhaps we are encountering the issue with facts not having the power to persuade. Hold on Percy. We're not talking about an absence of facts, but rather a failure on your part to verify facts I've cited in your own attempts, which includes at least some rejection of sources as 'unbalanced' based on whatever criteria you are using. I certainly don't consider you to be objective on this subject.Of course there are plenty of accounts that don't detail every aspect of the project. Stone Mountain is a tourist attraction. I don't expect to see much detail about the Klan showing up in the sites advertising brochures or on vanity web pages.Slightly off the topic. Just why is it that events like the Wilmington Massacre or the St Louis race riots during the early part of the twentieth century are not mentioned in most history books? Is it because some monument celebrating those events got removed?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Percy,Doesn't look like many people are on your side here. I wonder what do you think of this statement:""We do admit the Confederate statues and memorials were the cultural heritage of the South, but the part that contradicts our beliefs we would not like to have them any more."I oppose this view point.It seems to me this is what NoNukes and others are saying, although I'm sure they don't like that I used the word "beliefs". I used it because morals are a human construct and as such are a belief.The South used, in my opinion, social, economic, and moral justifications for slavery. This should not be forgotten and NOTHING coveys it better than memorials to their position.I do not support slavery or de-facto slavery. I have no claim to or would I take from someone else their work or a percentage of it under law or force of arms. Other's also have no right to my work. If either of the concepts of owning others work become true I become a slave or a slave holder. I wish to be neither, so I oppose the tax on income. If you support an income tax I'm sure you have social, economic, and moral reasons for doing so which makes you no different than Southerners 150 years ago.In reference to the Taliban blowing up two 1700 year old statues of Buddha, Mullah Wakil said,"We do admit the relics were the cultural heritage of Afghanistan, but the part that contradicts our Islamic beliefs we would not like to have them any more."I also oppose this view point.Wakil's quote from:After 1,700 years, Buddhas fall to Taliban dynamiteEdited by petrophysics1, : No reason given.Edited by petrophysics1, : No reason given.Edited by petrophysics1, : Add ref., fix typos, could be more as had cataract surgery and vision is great but not close and can't get new reading glasses until eyes are stable.Edited by petrophysics1, : another seeing screw up.

You didn't list any factors that make him any different than Lee or Jackson, but in this message you do provide some actual details: Yes. But Lee and Jackson owned slaves, too. Is it the number of slaves you find despicable? Shouldn't the accounts of Lee's harsh treatment of slaves make him despicable, too? Yes. How does sharing beliefs held by most Southerners make him especially despicable? That he wrote about them? If you have a case to make then you have to make it yourself, not ask me to make it for you. So far all you've got is unsupported claims. When I said "nothing factual to back up your unspecific claims" I meant nothing factual *from you*. You said Davis had committed despicable acts that you seemed to feel singled him out among Southerners, but from what I can tell his acts in owning slaves and believing in white superiority seem to be SOP for Southerners of the period and seem insufficient justification. In the end I have no idea how you're connecting facts to your opinions. I'm just using the Wikipedia article, which doesn't back you up. Where does your information come from?I did just now find a fairly detailed account (Granite Stopped Time: The Stone Mountain Memorial and the Representation of White Southern Identity) but it doesn't back you up, either.There's another detailed account out there, Carved In Stone: The History of Stone Mountain, but the Google books version is missing a lot, and Kindle and hardcopies cost money.--Percy

1) It is my view that Davis is distinguishable from Lee and Stonewall. Perhaps I am simply more familiar with Davis and the things he is famous for.2) In any case, the number of Southerners who held morally challenged views is simply not of interest to me. If it is your opinion that those other guys are just like Davis, I certainly am not defending their carving into a mountain. Apparently I have claims for which you reject what support does exist. That is not the same thing. The fact that you cannot find something on Wikipedia and that you reject support found elsewhere is not the same thing as claiming that there is no support.In an attempt to qualify your search I asked you if you had encountered certain details that are pretty much inescapable. Your answer reveals exactly what I suspected.Further. Isn't pursuing this line of inquiry besides the point? You really don't care what these folks did or did not do.ABE:After writing the above, I find that I cannot avoid providing some pointers to facts about the history of the carving on Stone Mountain. I understand that most folks probably don't spend much time poking around in civil war and post era history. For anyone interested I would point to the following :This book devotes some amount of text to the history of Stone Mountain over the extensive time period from conception to completion. There is not quite enough of the text available on Google to get the entire story: Monuments to the Lost Cause: Women, Art, and the Landscapes of Southern MemoryThe Real South Starts Here": Whiteness, the Confederacy, and Commodification at Stone MountainCarved in Stone: The History of Stone Mountain

quote:

---

The creation of this Confederate Memorial, the world's largest work of sculpted art brought the mountain to the notice of the nation and the world. In 1915, the United Daughters of the Confederacy leased the land and commissioned Gutzon Borglum...

​

Proceeding intermittently over six decades the project was once again revived during the South's massive response to racial integration. In 1958, capitalizing on this impulse the Georgia legislature funded the project for use as a tourist attraction.

---

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

If you do not share your knowledge and rationale, how would anyone ever know? Wikipedia contradicts you. Can you tell me where your information is coming from? When you're willing to provide facts and and arguments supporting your claims, I'm here.--Percy

No, Wikipedia does not contradict me. I agree completely with the sketch provided there. But it is not the complete story. In the meantime I have provide you some sources. With regards to Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee, my distinctions don't matter if you want to conclude that they are unfit, or fit heroes that's on you alone. You seem to think it matters how many Southern Heroes turn out to be unfit. I find that to be irrelevant. I've provided facts and arguments. I've also provide some pointers to references.

Actually, it does contradict you. For example, you said the KKK initiated the Stone Mountain Memorial effort. This is untrue. You again edited a message while I was in the middle of replying to it, I'll reply to part of it now. From Message 141: I already mentioned that reference to you in my message just before yours. And I already came across that passage and moved on because it didn't support your claim, specifically that "white supremacists and segregationists felt that having the state pick up the Klan's project was a mighty fine idea." If Freeman's book is the account you're endorsing for this claim then it doesn't support you. You made it sound like the state gave in to the pressures of a white supremacist/segregationist group, but your own reference says it was just the South responding to integration pressures.--Percy

What I said was that the state took over a Klan project. Which is true. You pointed out that the UDC initiated the project. I acknowledged that to be true, but pointed out that the early UDC was yet another group of white supremacists. Further, the UDC wasn't even that far from the Klan anyway. The Klan worked with the UDC on the Stone Mountain project.None of that is contradicted by the Wikipedia article. Percy, you quoted me, and re-reading what you quoted, I must note that I said nothing about any supremacists group. The white supremacists/segregationists in question were members of the legislature and similarly minded lobbyists and other people who urged the state to pick up the project. The project at time was failing miserably until the state stepped in with financing. And of course I have cited sources that discuss some of the motivation for funding such a project. Other sources specifically reference responses to Brown v. Board of education and civil rights for black folks as motivation for the state financing the project.ABE:Additional facts, Until the state bought the rights, Stone Mountain was owned by the Venable family. At the time the carving was conceived, Stone Mountain was a Klan meeting place, the Venable family were members of the Klan, and they also helped secure financing for the project.From Wikipedia

quote:

---

The UDC established the Stone Mountain Confederate Memorial Association (SMCMA) for fundraising and on-site supervision of the project. Venable and Gutzon Borglum, who were both closely associated with the Klan, arranged to pack the SMCMA with Klan members.[11] The SMCMA, along with the United Daughters of the Confederacy continued fundraising efforts.

---

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

The park was there since the 19th century; it's not something opened as memorial to the Stalin moument or anything. It was, of course, both erected and blown up by the Communist Party; but I'm not really sure I see your point here. It's okay to blow up a monument provided you're not doing so in response to public offense? But this wasn't just something done by Communists. They pulled down the Stalin statues in the 50s and 60s, but the Lenins and Gottwalds stayed. They were almost all removed en masse in less than a year from 1989-1990 in celebration of the downfall of the Communists. Half the streets, squares and public transport stations around the country were renamed*. 'October Revolution Square' in Prague became 'Victory Square', and the Lenin statue which used to stand there was replaced by a monument to the army. 'Square of the Paris Commune' became 'Square of the Synek Brothers'. 'Rosenbergs St' (named after the spies) became 'World's St.'This is all an intentional effort to erase the publicly visible records of the past, and it was indeed done because these monuments to dictators and to the heroes of a hated occupying power offended people. This seems to me exactly what you're arguing against, and yet it also seems absurd to suggest that the country should have retained all the external symbols of Communist rule.*though there was a silly 'also in the news' story a few years ago that someone had noticed one property in Bohumin was still listed as being on 'Lenin street' in the national property register, since someone had presumably forgotten to update that page.

Which is not true. You keep calling it a Klan project when it wasn't, and in any case the original project was long dead by 1958 when the state acquired ownership of the land. You're using a very broad brush with your accusations of white supremacy. The UDC (United Daughters of the Confederacy) was a woman's organization consisting of descendants of Confederate veterans. Memorials were a consistent focus. When the UDC formed the SMCMA (Stone Mountain Confederate Memorial Association), Venable (the owner) and Gutzon Borglum (a sculptor of national prominence who later did Mount Rushmore), who were both Klan members, "arranged to pack the SMCMA with Klan members" (a phrase you later also quote). Klan involvement was never sought by the UDC - they viewed Klan association as a negative, even more so on a national scale since the memorial was being promoted as part of a national reconciliation between North and South, and even received some federal help. Let's be clear here. Legislation has to have a majority to pass, so it wasn't just "members of the legislature" that you're claiming were white supremacist/segregationist, but a majority of them. I have no knowledge of the Georgia legislature in the 1950s and will just say again that you tend to paint with a very broad and negative brush. You don't allow the possibility that some people wanted to honor Southern history, heritage and heroes. The project had by that time failed long ago and no longer existed. True. And don't forget that the state revoked Klan site access.So here's a brief summary of facts. The Stone Mountain Memorial was initiated by the UDC in 1916 on a site where the Klan had been reincarnated just the year before. There were several years of involvement by Klan members in the 1920s bolstered by the Klan membership of the owner and the famous sculptor. Despite that there was great success in promoting the memorial nationally.But in 1925 internal tensions exploded. The SMCMA was accused of financial improprieties and Borglum was fired. Among the recriminations were accusations of Klan membership, more evidence that Klan association was not viewed as a positive. (The accusations of Klan membership flew from both sides, and both accurate as far as I can tell, see Granite Stopped Time: The Stone Mountain Memorial and the Representation of White Southern Identity, pages 32-35)Project efforts continued for several years but gradually lost momentum and ended altogether when the SMCMA went bankrupt in the late 1920s.In the 1950s a segregationist governor and the Georgia legislature were moved to action by desegregation pressures. They initiated a purchase of the land and eventually brought the sculpture to completion.You can rewrite this to include your accusations of white supremacist involvement, but such attitudes were common in the South over that entire period. Anything done in the South in that time would have to include white supremacists. Lamentable Southern attitudes doesn't change the fact that Davis, Lee and Jackson *are* heroes of the South deserving of memorials.But isn't this all beside the point? Wouldn't you still object to the memorial even if it had been done entirely by girl scouts, because of the inclusion of Jefferson Davis?--Percy

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was declining to comment either way because it all seemed internal to the Communist Party. Excellent question, let me rephrase: How do I balance my stance on the importance of preserving history against the right of a people's public expressions to reflect what they truly believe?Gee, that's a tough one. I cheered, too, when those statues came down in 1989 and after. On an emotional level I don't think the public part of a private dictatorship's expressions deserve preserving, and they actually feel abhorrent to me. As a preservationist I would like to see the expressions preserved unchanged as a record of despotism, but that seems woefully unfair to the people who have to live with them. As a pragmatist I think such expressions should come down but be preserved somewhere, whether they be statues or plaques or road signs or whatever, but that can get very expensive, especially for large objects. Obviously I'm conflicted. I guess I don't have a single unequivocal answer.--Percy

It was a Klan project. Do you know who the Venables were? Even the Wikiepedia articles tell you that the Venables owned the mountain (for a quarry), and donated one face for the project and gave the UDC a timeline for completing the project. The Venables also helped the UDC fundraise. The fundraising group was full of Klansmen many of them selected by the Venable family. According to Wikipedia, the hired sculptor/engineer was also closely associated with the Klan.When Georgia took over the project, they acquired the mountain and the partially completed carving from the Venables. It is senseless to deny the Klan involvement or to deny that the project was acquired from the Klan. The bulk of the legislature in Georgia up through the 50s consisted of segregationists. Are you really that seriously ignorant of what was going on in the South during the 1950s? The governors and senators in Georgia elected up until 1960s often won election by running on a segregationist platform. Read about Talmadge and his successors up through Lester Maddox in about 1966. In Georgia there was only one real political party (Democrats) and essentially all of the elected folks in state politics were segregationists in the 1950s. These guys are pretty famous for their reaction to Brown vs. Board of Education. The broad negative brush is well deserved.It seems that in order to discuss any issues with you, I have to begin with a fairly detailed discussion of history. That's fine, you didn't live anywhere near there, and apparently don't give a crap anyway. But your opinions about just how racist the government was in the 40s-50s have zero basis and you are not willing to look stuff up. I find the carving objectionable, but my objections to the carving don't extend to wanting it removed. However there are some folks who have expressed either a wish to blow the thing up, or to add elements to the park to 'balance' the history discussed there. Neither is going to happen because even the idea of adding to the park has been rejected by folks like the UDC and by state law, only the legislature can mess with the carving.I think the history behind the carving is fairly important as it is indicative of what this state sponsored carving is all about. It is not any kind of reminder for you at least of what went on to get the thing put up. It is instead simply a celebration of the Lost Cause faux history of the civil war. I thought Wikipedia said just the opposite. Prior to the project being acquired by the state, the carving was pretty much a laughingstock because of its poor execution. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

They were rendered them unfit as heroes based on their actions. Yet folks worshiped them anyway even for the morally repugnant things they represented.