Memphis Sells Two Public Parks to Get Rid of Confederate Statues

[iluvatar5150]

Tennessee has a law requiring that the removal of any statues from public land be first approved by the state historical commission. In 2016, they passed a law toughening the requirements from the original requirement of a simple majority of the commission to the new standard of a two-thirds majority.

Why removing Confederate monuments in Tennessee is not an easy process

Memphis applied to have its statues of Jefferson Davis and Nathan Bedford Forrest removed, but was denied (because why shouldn't the city have statues to the president of the confederacy and one of the early leaders of the Klan?) So, when they couldn't remove the statues from public parks, they did the next best thing:

They privatized the parks.

And the contract required the purchaser to continue to operate the property as a park.

Memphis removes Confederate statues from Downtown parks

 

[Basil the Great]

As an elderly friend of mine often remarks, "It is a sign of the times".

 

[Ana the Ist]

Tennessee has a law requiring that the removal of any statues from public land be first approved by the state historical commission. In 2016, they passed a law toughening the requirements from the original requirement of a simple majority of the commission to the new standard of a two-thirds majority.

Why removing Confederate monuments in Tennessee is not an easy process

Memphis applied to have its statues of Jefferson Davis and Nathan Bedford Forrest removed, but was denied (because why shouldn't the city have statues to the president of the confederacy and one of the early leaders of the Klan?) So, when they couldn't remove the statues from public parks, they did the next best thing:

They privatized the parks.

And the contract required the purchaser to continue to operate the property as a park.

Memphis removes Confederate statues from Downtown parks

That's a smart way to deal with it...I'm glad they didn't have to give up the parks.

Hopefully, the private owners won't see any backlash from this.

 

[FenderTL5]

or.. maybe after the statues are removed the city can repurchase the park/land.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Good, glad they found an elegant solution for this.

Sounds like there were too many holdouts playing the disingenuous "it's about history preservation" card as a cheap excuse for keeping confederate monuments up.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sounds like there were too many holdouts playing the disingenuous "it's about history preservation" card as a cheap excuse for keeping confederate monuments up.

I don't know why you think that's disingenuous...that was why I was against the removal of General Lee statues, the Vladimir Lenin statue, and several others.

That, and the fact that this had little to nothing to do with racism.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I don't know why you think that's disingenuous...that was why I was against the removal of General Lee statues, the Vladimir Lenin statue, and several others.

That, and the fact that this had little to nothing to do with racism.

Most don't understand the intent behind many of those monuments and don't seem to want to make the distinction between "history preservation" and "showing reverence". Many claimed they wanted to keep them up in the name of the former, not realizing that most of them were put up in the name of the latter.

Many (if not most) of those monuments weren't put up immediately following the war or even a few years later perhaps by men who served under them who wanted to remember them...most of those started showing up in the 1920's and 1930's as a public showing of defiance out of spite for some of the civil rights legislation coming from the federal government. They didn't even know the men they were commemorating and likely knew very little about them, it was just a public showing by southern state officials letting everyone know "what side we're on when it comes to equality for certain people"


Preserving a historic battle site, keeping old confederate documents, writings, and regalia in a publicly funded civil war museum...and even going as far as preserving a monument/grave site near a civil war battle site is fine and it's completely reasonable to assert that keeping those things is done in the name of preserving history.

However, statues honoring particularly nasty slave owners, civil war generals, and confederate officials, that were propped up in public parks and state buildings by segregationists in the 1930's has very little to with preserving history and has more to do with showing reverence and conveying a sentiment of "we, in this here town, long for the good ol' days when certain kinds of people knew their place"

...of course, the other angle many try to play is "oh, it's not showing reverence, it's a reminder of past mistakes so we don't do that stuff again, right boys? " ...which if that was the case, then they need to change the wording on the plaques from the kind, honoring words that are currently on there, to valid criticisms about them and make it clear that "this person was a terrible human being and the world is better off with people who think that way"

In the case of most of these statues, it's not about history preservation in the same way that it's not about history preservation when they were building new high schools in the 1970's and 80's an STILL naming them after prominent members of the confederacy...and then playing the "you can't change the name because it's about history preservation" card.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Most don't understand the intent behind many of those monuments and don't seem to want to make the distinction between "history preservation" and "showing reverence". Many claimed they wanted to keep them up in the name of the former, not realizing that most of them were put up in the name of the latter.

You do realize that someone could want to preserve history while fully understanding who created such statues and monuments and why.

Many (if not most) of those monuments weren't put up immediately following the war or even a few years later perhaps by men who served under them who wanted to remember them...most of those started showing up in the 1920's and 1930's as a public showing of defiance out of spite for some of the civil rights legislation coming from the federal government. They didn't even know the men they were commemorating and likely knew very little about them, it was just a public showing by southern state officials letting everyone know "what side we're on when it comes to equality for certain people"


Preserving a historic battle site, keeping old confederate documents, writings, and regalia in a publicly funded civil war museum...and even going as far as preserving a monument/grave site near a civil war battle site is fine and it's completely reasonable to assert that keeping those things is done in the name of preserving history.

However, statues honoring particularly nasty slave owners, civil war generals, and confederate officials, that were propped up in public parks and state buildings by segregationists in the 1930's has very little to with preserving history and has more to do with showing reverence and conveying a sentiment of "we, in this here town, long for the good ol' days when certain kinds of people knew their place"

...of course, the other angle many try to play is "oh, it's not showing reverence, it's a reminder of past mistakes so we don't do that stuff again, right boys? " ...which if that was the case, then they need to change the wording on the plaques from the kind, honoring words that are currently on there, to valid criticisms about them and make it clear that "this person was a terrible human being and the world is better off with people who think that way"

In the case of most of these statues, it's not about history preservation in the same way that it's not about history preservation when they were building new high schools in the 1970's and 80's an STILL naming them after prominent members of the confederacy...and then playing the "you can't change the name because it's about history preservation" card.

Sure, many of them...but definitely not all. In fact, the only thing they all have in common is that they're statues of white men who people claimed were racist...or otherwise "bad" in some way. For example....

Pastor Wants Presidents' Names Removed From Washington, Jackson Parks Over Ties To Slavery

So really, the reasoning outlined in your post is just the reasoning used when it's convenient...it doesn't make much difference who put up a statue or monument when the "outraged" left can't use that as an excuse to tear down a statue of a white historical figure.

 

[SummerMadness]

This is a sad day, this reminds me of another country that removed markers of their history...

How are people supposed to know what happened in the past unless they have statues lionizing the leaders of the past? It's not like they could compile this stuff in a book or something. For instance, I know all of German history, but it gets hazy around the 1930s and 1940s, there are simply no statues or monuments around for me to figure out what happened then.

 

[Ana the Ist]

This is a sad day, this reminds me of another country that removed markers of their history...

How are people supposed to know what happened in the past unless they have statues lionizing the leaders of the past? It's not like they could compile this stuff in a book or something. For instance, I know all of German history, but it gets hazy around the 1930s and 1940s, there are simply no statues or monuments around for me to figure out what happened then.

That would be valid hyperbole if we were getting rid of all statues...regardless of who they're of...

...but that's not the case.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So really, the reasoning outlined in your post is just the reasoning used when it's convenient...it doesn't make much difference who put up a statue or monument when the "outraged" left can't use that as an excuse to tear down a statue of a white historical figure.

That would be valid hyperbole if we were getting rid of all statues...regardless of who they're of...

...but that's not the case.

Pastor Wants Presidents' Names Removed From Washington, Jackson Parks Over Ties To Slavery

So really, the reasoning outlined in your post is just the reasoning used when it's convenient...it doesn't make much difference who put up a statue or monument when the "outraged" left can't use that as an excuse to tear down a statue of a white historical figure.

I realize that there are a select few among the far-left that want all statues of people who owned slaves removed. However, the overwhelming majority of those on the left (and in the center) are specifically focused on the Confederate iconography.

That's why I mentioned that context and historical merit are key in making these determinations.

Were the statues of Washington and Jackson specifically erected to "send a message" to blacks that "no matter what the federal government says, you'll know your place down here boy!" ?

No,...Washington and Jackson statues were erected because they were two of the early key figures and partial-founders of our nation...they did happen to also own slaves and hold concerning views about minorities, but that's not the purpose of why those statues were erected and then later preserved. However, the same cannot be said for most of the confederate statues. Many were erected 70 years after the fact as a public showing of disdain for civil rights legislation they didn't like, and nearly all of them were preserved for reasons specifically pertaining to those negative qualities those men held.

Most of the people fighting to keep those probably couldn't even pass the most basic of history tests pertaining to the confederacy or the civil war (basing that off of conversations I've had with the "pro confederate flag" types).

They're either racist alt-right types like we saw at Charlottesville... (it's not just a coincidence that those white power types choose the confederate flag as one of their symbols...it's certainly not because they're history buffs or just like the colors and shapes)

Or, They're people who are the "well, the liberals want to get rid of it, so I need to deliberately oppose them no matter what the cause is" (There are plenty of those types floating around these days too)

Or, they're misguided folks who think the Civil War was all about "states' rights" because that's what they were told by some confederate sympathizer who was trying to justify their support for the confederacy without sounding overtly racist.

 

[Goonie]

Tennessee has a law requiring that the removal of any statues from public land be first approved by the state historical commission. In 2016, they passed a law toughening the requirements from the original requirement of a simple majority of the commission to the new standard of a two-thirds majority.

Why removing Confederate monuments in Tennessee is not an easy process

Memphis applied to have its statues of Jefferson Davis and Nathan Bedford Forrest removed, but was denied (because why shouldn't the city have statues to the president of the confederacy and one of the early leaders of the Klan?) So, when they couldn't remove the statues from public parks, they did the next best thing:

They privatized the parks.

And the contract required the purchaser to continue to operate the property as a park.

Memphis removes Confederate statues from Downtown parks

Interesting, I wonder whether this will be challenged in court. Is this a genuine sale? Or merely a means to sidestep the law.

 

[durangodawood]

That would be valid hyperbole if we were getting rid of all statues...regardless of who they're of...

...but that's not the case.

Because nobody ever is deserving of a place of honor...

 

[FireDragon76]

Most don't understand the intent behind many of those monuments and don't seem to want to make the distinction between "history preservation" and "showing reverence". Many claimed they wanted to keep them up in the name of the former, not realizing that most of them were put up in the name of the latter.

Many (if not most) of those monuments weren't put up immediately following the war or even a few years later perhaps by men who served under them who wanted to remember them...most of those started showing up in the 1920's and 1930's as a public showing of defiance out of spite for some of the civil rights legislation coming from the federal government. They didn't even know the men they were commemorating and likely knew very little about them, it was just a public showing by southern state officials letting everyone know "what side we're on when it comes to equality for certain people"


Preserving a historic battle site, keeping old confederate documents, writings, and regalia in a publicly funded civil war museum...and even going as far as preserving a monument/grave site near a civil war battle site is fine and it's completely reasonable to assert that keeping those things is done in the name of preserving history.

However, statues honoring particularly nasty slave owners, civil war generals, and confederate officials, that were propped up in public parks and state buildings by segregationists in the 1930's has very little to with preserving history and has more to do with showing reverence and conveying a sentiment of "we, in this here town, long for the good ol' days when certain kinds of people knew their place"

...of course, the other angle many try to play is "oh, it's not showing reverence, it's a reminder of past mistakes so we don't do that stuff again, right boys? " ...which if that was the case, then they need to change the wording on the plaques from the kind, honoring words that are currently on there, to valid criticisms about them and make it clear that "this person was a terrible human being and the world is better off with people who think that way"

In the case of most of these statues, it's not about history preservation in the same way that it's not about history preservation when they were building new high schools in the 1970's and 80's an STILL naming them after prominent members of the confederacy...and then playing the "you can't change the name because it's about history preservation" card.

Not to mention Lee was against using Confederate symbols divisively after the war.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Because nobody ever is deserving of a place of honor...

It wasn't my argument...

 

[Ana the Ist]

I realize that there are a select few among the far-left that want all statues of people who owned slaves removed. However, the overwhelming majority of those on the left (and in the center) are specifically focused on the Confederate iconography.

That's why I mentioned that context and historical merit are key in making these determinations.

Were the statues of Washington and Jackson specifically erected to "send a message" to blacks that "no matter what the federal government says, you'll know your place down here boy!" ?

Gotcha...so I suspect that if this comes down to a protest between a group of angry liberals and neo nazis...you'll be siding with the nazis on this one?

No,...Washington and Jackson statues were erected because they were two of the early key figures and partial-founders of our nation...they did happen to also own slaves and hold concerning views about minorities, but that's not the purpose of why those statues were erected and then later preserved. However, the same cannot be said for most of the confederate statues. Many were erected 70 years after the fact as a public showing of disdain for civil rights legislation they didn't like, and nearly all of them were preserved for reasons specifically pertaining to those negative qualities those men held.

Yet none of any of that means anything to those pushing for the removal of these statues...

It's almost like your reasons were never the real reasons in the first place.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Gotcha...so I suspect that if this comes down to a protest between a group of angry liberals and neo nazis...you'll be siding with the nazis on this one?

Yet none of any of that means anything to those pushing for the removal of these statues...

It's almost like your reasons were never the real reasons in the first place.

Why would I be siding with the Nazis?

The reasons I listed have been reasons that have been listed for quite some time. However, it simply picked up steam after a few hot button events happened involving the symbolism. That's nothing new...an extreme occurrence always tends to raise awareness for certain causes and initiatives.

You're assuming that those who want those statues removed are just simpletons who don't really know what they want and are just "joining in".

It shouldn't be hard to understand why a black person living in the south doesn't want to pay money in taxes to maintain and preserve statues of men who were fighting specifically for the idea that they are property that should be owned.



But really, that doesn't matter, your assertion seems to be based on the false premise that a correct conclusion is negated if some people have the correct conclusion from weak reasoning.

That'd be like if we discussing seat belt laws, and found out that a sizable percentage of people pushing for seat belt laws were doing so because they thought if you weren't wearing one, gremlins would snatch you out of your car.

Just because their particular reason for coming to the pro-seatbelt conclusion is invalid, that doesn't invalidate the actual scientific reasons pertaining to reducing injury and death in a crash.

 

[SummerMadness]

I think considering my signature referring to the Confederacy long existed before the current push to remove Confederate monuments, I think it's rather ignorant to claim that people are simpletons or simply "joining in" in opposition to dismantling monuments. We have people seriously telling others to accept the symbols and iconography of a country with founding documents enshrining your status as less than a person. Those who wrote the US Constitution, for all its flaws in its initial inception, acknowledged they were punting the issue, but the Confederacy had no such dilemma. Anything that represents the Confederacy will always be a symbol of hate when it comes to lionizing those figures and that time period. Keep the Confederacy in the museum and text books, but out of the public square. You are not preserving history by honoring Jefferson Davis, you are glorifying hate.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Let's put up a statue of Mohammed Atta amd see how well that goes over with the "pro-history" crowd.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Why would I be siding with the Nazis?

The reasons I listed have been reasons that have been listed for quite some time. However, it simply picked up steam after a few hot button events happened involving the symbolism. That's nothing new...an extreme occurrence always tends to raise awareness for certain causes and initiatives.

You're assuming that those who want those statues removed are just simpletons who don't really know what they want and are just "joining in".

It shouldn't be hard to understand why a black person living in the south doesn't want to pay money in taxes to maintain and preserve statues of men who were fighting specifically for the idea that they are property that should be owned.

I don't see what the "south" has to do with this at all...

Black Lives Matter Protesters Put Tarp Over Thomas Jefferson Statue on U.Va. Campus

Protesters demand removal of NYC statue hailing doctor who experimented on slave women

Disputed DC statue raises questions about public symbols

Small group calls for removal of Fremont's Lenin statue

But really, that doesn't matter, your assertion seems to be based on the false premise that a correct conclusion is negated if some people have the correct conclusion from weak reasoning.

That'd be like if we discussing seat belt laws, and found out that a sizable percentage of people pushing for seat belt laws were doing so because they thought if you weren't wearing one, gremlins would snatch you out of your car.

Just because their particular reason for coming to the pro-seatbelt conclusion is invalid, that doesn't invalidate the actual scientific reasons pertaining to reducing injury and death in a crash.

Oh no...allow me to clarify. Your opinions (what you're calling "conclusions") cannot be "factually correct"...they're just opinions after all. They're just beliefs. You may think that some victory is won by pulling down statues, that it's going to improve something...and I may think that you're just supporting it to make yourself feel better.

I'd suggest that if you seriously think the reasons for pulling down statues were actually..."blah blah blah reasons why they were put up"...then why are so many statues that weren't erected for those reasons under attack?