Union statues in the Southwest also honor the war against Native Americans

PatYoung · Jul 11, 2020

Some Union statues in the Southwest honor troops for the fight against the Confederacy and the massacre of Native Americans. Megan Kate Nelson in The Atlantic.

Historian Megan Kate Nelson Questions "Union" Statues in the Southwest - The Reconstruction Era

Historian Megan Kate Nelson has a new article in the Atlantic on the ambiguous “Union” statues in the Southwest that now face removal. According to...

thereconstructionera.com

diane · Jul 11, 2020

Thanks, Pat, for pointing up this historian. She has some interesting views and interpretations on the West. Not too many - in fact, I don't know of any - historians connect the South and the West, but Southern influence out here has been very strong. Dixie in Colorado - Southerners tried to find out if cotton grew in the Colorado plains. Agricultural colonies in Southern California - Tyree Bell, Forrest's general, growing tomatoes in Fresno! The fall of King Cotton in the South had a profound effect in California, and on the culture.

The monument building that went throughout the South came here as well. Look at any map of the West and it's not just statues - towns named Sheridan, Custer, Rawlins, Canby, Sturgis. Names of places - Bloody Lake, Murderer's Bar. How about the statue to John C Fremont and the Bear Republic. In short, when you start asking these questions you come to quick sand almost immediately - you're questioning the fabric of this nation.

And, there's perspective. If I was to throw a statue in the harbor it wouldn't be Christopher Columbus, it would be Stanford University's David Starr Jordan. Why, when they both did the same thing? Columbus was straight up about it - these people will make great slaves and if they don't we'll kill 'em. Clear and strangely impersonal, simple conquest. Jordan believed he was following philanthropic values and improving the human condition by improving humans...which meant getting rid of the goofy ones... The most evil peacenik ever!

Matt McKeon · Jul 11, 2020

There was an interesting book called Misplaced Massacre about establishing a national park at the Sand Creek massacre site. The author describes the debate(this was Before, so it was mild) about describing the Massacre as a Civil War battle, or part of the Indian Wars. He specifically references monuments.

Matt McKeon · Jul 11, 2020

diane said:
Thanks, Pat, for pointing up this historian. She has some interesting views and interpretations on the West. Not too many - in fact, I don't know of any - historians connect the South and the West, but Southern influence out here has been very strong. Dixie in Colorado - Southerners tried to find out if cotton grew in the Colorado plains. Agricultural colonies in Southern California - Tyree Bell, Forrest's general, growing tomatoes in Fresno! The fall of King Cotton in the South had a profound effect in California, and on the culture.

The monument building that went throughout the South came here as well. Look at any map of the West and it's not just statues - towns named Sheridan, Custer, Rawlins, Canby, Sturgis. Names of places - Bloody Lake, Murderer's Bar. How about the statue to John C Fremont and the Bear Republic. In short, when you start asking these questions you come to quick sand almost immediately - you're questioning the fabric of this nation.

And, there's perspective. If I was to throw a statue in the harbor it wouldn't be Christopher Columbus, it would be Stanford University's David Starr Jordan. Why, when they both did the same thing? Columbus was straight up about it - these people will make great slaves and if they don't we'll kill 'em. Clear and strangely impersonal, simple conquest. Jordan believed he was following philanthropic values and improving the human condition by improving humans...which meant getting rid of the goofy ones... The most evil peacenik ever!

What a tool Jordan was. "The mos evil peacenik ever!" Great phrase!

jgoodguy · Jul 11, 2020

History is quicksand.

diane · Jul 11, 2020

Matt McKeon said:
There was an interesting book called Misplaced Massacre about establishing a national park at the Sand Creek massacre site. The author describes the debate(this was Before, so it was mild) about describing the Massacre as a Civil War battle, or part of the Indian Wars. He specifically references monuments.

There's a lot of misinformation on plaques and monuments! Sand Creek - many of the militia were appalled at that event but many others were happy as hell to kill a bunch of savages. Chivington was one of those. There was a certain narrative at the time the monument was established and the appalled story was not the one people wanted to hear. That's the sort of stuff folks just don't want to know about their ancestors!

jgoodguy · Jul 11, 2020

Without slavery, the US would not exist as a great power. Without George Washington, no victory over the British, without Jefferson, no declaration of Independence, without Madison, no Constitution.

Without conquering the natives and attendant genocide there is no great power.

History is the story of men doing in other men for land, gold, and women. The touchy-feely nations disappeared.

diane · Jul 11, 2020

So much for the veneer of civilization! Makes one consider if there ever was such a thing. I suspect we never stopped being the ape in 2001 throwing bones in the air because it had figured out how to kill.

jgoodguy · Jul 11, 2020

diane said:
There's a lot of misinformation on plaques and monuments! Sand Creek - many of the militia were appalled at that event but many others were happy as hell to kill a bunch of savages. Chivington was one of those. There was a certain narrative at the time the monument was established and the appalled story was not the one people wanted to hear. That's the sort of stuff folks just don't want to know about their ancestors!

That's the problem with some of the new advocacy. Wild-eyed idealistic advocacy running into human nature. Getting rid of moonlight and magnolias plantations with movie-style dresses as wedding destinations is one thing, calling them concentration camps leads me to wonder what is being smoked.

jgoodguy · Jul 11, 2020

diane said:
So much for the veneer of civilization! Makes one consider if there ever was such a thing. I suspect we never stopped being the ape in 2001 throwing bones in the air because it had figured out how to kill.

The best thing I have read is from a depressing book about insurgencies. Prehistory humans would creep into the next village over thrust spears into huts to kill and make off with women, children as slaves with other booty and repeat. Civilization ended that with organized terror so that farmers could grow surpluses and craftsmen could make things.

diane · Jul 11, 2020

Yes, that's why there were 'war seasons'. Fighting was done when food was around but not during winter. Sheridan shocked the tribes when he went after them in winter, to destroy their food and shelter. Even their worst enemies didn't do that!

jgoodguy · Jul 11, 2020

diane said:
Yes, that's why there were 'war seasons'. Fighting was done when food was around but not during winter. Sheridan shocked the tribes when he went after them in winter, to destroy their food and shelter. Even their worst enemies didn't do that!

'Civilized' War.

Joshism · Jul 11, 2020

America was built on blood. So is pretty much every country, past and present, including the native tribes here before Europeans. History is written in blood.

Naming a place after something bad isn't necessarily an endorsement of the event. I see it more like Time's Person of the Year.

It's the difference between naming a university after Lee and calling a house where Lee lived the Lee House.

The thing about monument removal is where should it stop? Not what do the radical leftist mobs want. What, if we are trying to be a good society, should we do?

References to 'ignorant savages' should go the way of "War of Northern Aggression" sure, but a reasonable line needs to be drawn.

Otherwise lets take this to its rational conclusion. Not only are we tearing down the statues of anyone who fought against Native Americans we need to tear down the Vietnam Veterans Wall because a bunch of those guys were racist against the Vietnamese and some non-zero number of them were probably baby killers.

We need a reasonable middle ground between "Why can't I call them [slur]" and "Everyone before now was a terrible person and you should feel bad about it and hate all of them."

diane said:
And, there's perspective. If I was to throw a statue in the harbor it wouldn't be Christopher Columbus, it would be Stanford University's David Starr Jordan. Why, when they both did the same thing? Columbus was straight up about it - these people will make great slaves and if they don't we'll kill 'em. Clear and strangely impersonal, simple conquest. Jordan believed he was following philanthropic values and improving the human condition by improving humans...which meant getting rid of the goofy ones... The most evil peacenik ever!

I had never heard of Jordan.

Eugenics was an early 20th century fad that seems permanently discredited by the Nazis, but it's sort of the inevitable conclusion some people were going to reach from evolutionary studies combined with the views on race at the time. I wonder how many of the ideas would have more merit if eugenicists had looked to the human race as a whole instead of the lens of white, black, etc? And if they weren't working off misguided methods of determining "fitness" like phrenology.

There's nothing quite like a worldwide pandemic to warrant questioning whether our modern society's obsession with keeping everyone alive as long as possible might be a bad idea. And even in the best of times one is going to meet people one realizes shouldn't breed. I speak of myself personally included in that. I don't have or want kids, but even I did there are good reasons why I should choose not to do so.

diane · Jul 11, 2020

Joshism said:
America was built on blood. So is pretty much every country, past and present, including the native tribes here before Europeans. History is written in blood.

Naming a place after something bad isn't necessarily an endorsement of the event. I see it more like Time's Person of the Year.

It's the difference between naming a university after Lee and calling a house where Lee lived the Lee House.

The thing about monument removal is where should it stop? Not what do the radical leftist mobs want. What, if we are trying to be a good society, should we do?

References to 'ignorant savages' should go the way of "War of Northern Aggression" sure, but a reasonable line needs to be drawn.

Otherwise lets take this to its rational conclusion. Not only are we tearing down the statues of anyone who fought against Native Americans we need to tear down the Vietnam Veterans Wall because a bunch of those guys were racist against the Vietnamese and some non-zero number of them were probably baby killers.

We need a reasonable middle ground between "Why can't I call them [slur]" and "Everyone before now was a terrible person and you should feel bad about it and hate all of them."

I had never heard of Jordan.

Eugenics was an early 20th century fad that seems permanently discredited by the Nazis, but it's sort of the inevitable conclusion some people were going to reach from evolutionary studies combined with the views on race at the time. I wonder how many of the ideas would have more merit if eugenicists had looked to the human race as a whole instead of the lens of white, black, etc? And if they weren't working off misguided methods of determining "fitness" like phrenology.

There's nothing quite like a worldwide pandemic to warrant questioning whether our modern society's obsession with keeping everyone alive as long as possible might be a bad idea. And even in the best of times one is going to meet people one realizes shouldn't breed. I speak of myself personally included in that. I don't have or want kids, but even I did there are good reasons why I should choose not to do so.

I've never been one for tearing down statues, etc. There are a few exceptions, but mostly I would like 'room'. Just a space to tell the truth. I'm not in favor of protesting Pioneer Mike, for example. Pioneer Mike shows up in towns all through the Pacific Northwest with his trusty rifle and his hand shielding his eyes as he looks to the bright future. He and his bazillion brothers were churned out at a foundry in Iowa during the patriotic fit at the turn of the century - the end of the 'Indian Wars'. And there's a very peculiar twist to the 'room for us' approach - the monument in Ft Mill, SC to loyal slaves and Indians and wives of the Confederacy. The individual who put it up honestly meant to honor those groups but, today, the message comes across quite differently. So, there's a new context to deal with. Later down the road in the history of this country, that context will change yet again. It is what it is is a simplistic and dismissive expression but there is truth in it nonetheless. Suppression of other history is what the underlying issue really is.

Eugenics is just about the most devil inspired ideology man has come up with. I like to refer people to Rabbit Proof Fence, a film about Australia's aborigine people. David Jordan was EXACTLY the man portrayed - he truly believed he was helping. That's why I always say the devil's got one super power - lying. And it's a beaut.

jgoodguy · Jul 11, 2020

My position on statues and monuments is let the locals decide.
All movements spin out of control.
It seems that Eugenics never involves application to one own race, clan, or political ideology.

diane · Jul 11, 2020

jgoodguy said:
My position on statues and monuments is let the locals decide.
All movements spin out of control.
It seems that Eugenics never involves application to one own race, clan, or political ideology.

Neither did slavery! That's why Lincoln observed that if slavery was such a good thing, why didn't anybody want it for themselves? Unspoken answer - don't need it - we're already superior! One has to be trained for at least a few generations to get one's mind to tie itself in knots until something like that sounds right. If I decided to cut slave owners some slack that's the argument I would use - they were brain washed to accept something as true they knew darn well was not.

I think locals should have the final say as well. It's amazing how much of this dismantling has been done without public consultation, and in many cases I can see why. (It was also put up without public consultation.) A sad aspect is that quite a few of these statues were artwork. Forrest's statue was one of Charles Niehaus' best equestrian pieces and one of the top three in the United States. Niehaus is one of the foremost American sculptors. The message was definitely don't get comfortable former slaves, we're coming back...and there the troubles are. (Forrest himself would not have approved of it, by the way - he'd have wanted the money to go to veterans who were still around at the time. His son believed his father had gotten the dirty end of the stick, and therefore the whole family, and it was incumbent on him to restore family honor. Looked like the way to do it at the time...) It seems the same people who put their blood and treasure into the rebellion did the same for these statues.

The Indian history and monuments is different but not that much. Take Indian Peggy. The Daughters of the Golden West put up a nice marker for her - she heroically saved the town from an Indian attack by the Shasta and is much honored. To hell with the town, she just knew what was left of the tribe and her family would be totally annihilated if we retaliated for them wiping out the chief and his whole family. Sometimes your bread just ain't buttered on either side!

O' Be Joyful · Jul 11, 2020

diane said:
Unspoken answer - don't need it - we're already superior! One has to be trained for at least a few generations to get one's mind to tie itself in knots until something like that sounds right. If I decided to cut slave owners some slack that's the argument I would use - they were brain washed to accept something as true they knew darn well was not.

What has remained old is once again/always New again.

Matt McKeon · Jul 11, 2020

jgoodguy said:
Without slavery, the US would not exist as a great power. Without George Washington, no victory over the British, without Jefferson, no declaration of Independence, without Madison, no Constitution.

Without conquering the natives and attendant genocide there is no great power.

History is the story of men doing in other men for land, gold, and women. The touchy-feely nations disappeared.

I disagree about the slavery part. Slavery played a big part in American history and the development of the US. But that's not the same as saying the nation couldn't have developed without slavery. Its not like immigration. Where would the country do without immigration in the 19th century and 20th century? That's what built America.

Considering the cost of the Civil War, and the legacy of racism that haunts us to this day, was slavery a net positive?

I agree with Washington. Its hard to see without his role the Revolution surviving.

About Jefferson, we still would have had a Declaration----but not his challenging, Enlightenment based preamble: "we hold these truths to be self evident....." a different document, and perhaps a different, lesser concept of America.

About Madison: there were a lot of talented delegates at the convention, we still would have had a Constitution.

About touchy feely nations....Justice is not a luxury item.

Denmark facilitated the escape of its entire Jewish population. Two thousand Danish police officers were sent to concentration camps for refusing to enforce anti Jewish regulations or assist in rounding up Danish Jews. Very touchy feely. Yet Denmark has survived.

Ireland has never conquered or occupied a foot of another people's land. Yet, against the odds, Ireland has survived.

In 1940, the British rejected the Nazi offer of a bargain that would have allowed them to keep their empire. Instead they vowed they would "never surrender." The war accelerated the loss of their empire, but they kept their souls.

Matt McKeon · Jul 11, 2020

[QUOTE="

Eugenics was an early 20th century fad that seems permanently discredited by the Nazis, but it's sort of the inevitable conclusion some people were going to reach from evolutionary studies combined with the views on race at the time. I wonder how many of the ideas would have more merit if eugenicists had looked to the human race as a whole instead of the lens of white, black, etc? And if they weren't working off misguided methods of determining "fitness" like phrenology.

There's nothing quite like a worldwide pandemic to warrant questioning whether our modern society's obsession with keeping everyone alive as long as possible might be a bad idea. And even in the best of times one is going to meet people one realizes shouldn't breed. I speak of myself personally included in that. I don't have or want kids, but even I did there are good reasons why I should choose not to do so.
[/QUOTE]
Eugenicists, in America, were irrational nutjobs who were responsible for the suffering of tens of thousands, and in their influence of American policy, especially immigration policy in the early 20th century, the indirect murder of hundreds of thousands. A single lunch program in one school district for one year, does more good for the human race than all the eugenicists who ever lived. Anyone who feels like they can improve the human race can start by shooting themselves in the head.

text color to distinguish quote from my comment below.

jgoodguy · Jul 12, 2020

Matt McKeon said:
I disagree about the slavery part. Slavery played a big part in American history and the development of the US. But that's not the same as saying the nation couldn't have developed without slavery. Its not like immigration. Where would the country do without immigration in the 19th century and 20th century? That's what built America.

Why did folks come to the US in the 19th and 20th centuries? Because there was an existing powerful and wealthy nation to come to.

Matt McKeon said:
Considering the cost of the Civil War, and the legacy of racism that haunts us to this day, was slavery a net positive?

Yes, we would not exist without the what created us. It was only the wealth of the Industrial revolution, which was financed and powered by slavery that gave the wealth to end slavery. Also, compare and contrast the US that racism and slavery created to a barren frontier.

Union statues in the Southwest also honor the war against Native Americans

Well-Known Member

that gal

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Webmaster

that gal

Webmaster

that gal

Webmaster

Webmaster

that gal

Webmaster

Well-Known Member

that gal

Webmaster

that gal

ohio hillbilly

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Webmaster