QuoteJacksonville City Council President Anna Lopez Brosche on Monday said she is preparing a plan to relocate all Confederate markers, monuments and memorials that are on public property.
In a written statement, Brosche said she has asked the city's parks department to create an inventory of all Confederate monuments, memorials and markers on public property. Once that list is created, she said she will propose legislation to move them into museums and educational institutions "where they can be respectfully preserved and historically contextualized."
Full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2017-08-14/jacksonville-city-council-president-calls-confederate-memorials-be-moved
and so it begins.....
Next... :D
(http://img.groundspeak.com/waymarking/large/10791ce0-51be-4388-bda5-c618f44f2ee3.JPG)
This is a great plan. It removes the glorification factor while still remembering them as part of history. In fact, they'll get more academic and historical context in a museum or educational setting.
Quote from: Jim on August 14, 2017, 03:59:55 PM
This is a great plan. It removes the glorification factor while still remembering them as part of history. In fact, they'll get more academic and historical context in a museum or educational setting.
But far less of the general public will see them and in some cases would have to pay in order to see them. Whey not contextualize the controversial monuments by having Union monuments or monuments to civil rights heroes or local historical figure that juxtapose or off set the perceived 'hate' emanating from these statues.
I applaud the Council president's sensitivity; however, if one visits DC, there are many iconic figures of American History who were on the wrong side of the slavery debate. Maybe they weren't generals in the Civil War because they lived outside of that timeframe in history, but they certainly practiced slave ownership. The reality is that people are often "mixed bags" of good and bad.
I wholly support the idea of taking a full inventory of city monuments/statues, just to be sure we are still comfortable with why we honor the person, i.e. is there more good than bad. In addition, we could also commission new works of art and monuments to stand alongside the existing ones as a demonstration of how we've changed and evolved from these relics of the past...similar to what was suggested by lastdaysoffla...
I don't think it is likely to happen because of money, but I really like lastdaysoffla's idea. One can draw parallels between it and the typical first amendment argument that the answer to bad speech is more speech, not to get rid of the bad speech.
I think there's a difference between historical figures who owned slaves and those who decided that owning slaves was more important than remaining a part of their country.
The Hemming Memorial is a memorial to the soldiers from Duval who died in the Civil War, correct?
Quote from: FlaBoy on August 14, 2017, 10:01:20 PM
The Hemming Memorial is a memorial to the soldiers from Duval who died in the Civil War, correct?
We may never know because we are erasing our history because you know .... ignorance is well bliss and its ironic that the colloquial term is white washing ....
Personally, I'd like a real honest discussion about race and how the social programs of the political parties have contributed if not were designed to keep minorities second class citizens. To me, in some ways, the crimes against minorities, in the name of social engineering, are the most offensive of all. Lets talk about this .... personally, I'd rather be productive than having a 'sit-in' in front of a plaque or 1 foot tall bust on a stone pillar. I'd rather be talking about how we all move ahead ... and I'd rather be motivated not to repeat the past by a monument than by pretending the oppression never happened.
^Really great response.
I can see the merits of both sides of this argument. The overwhelming majority of rank and file Confederate soldiers did not own slaves. They fought for their region of the country. I believe that most weren't fighting for slavery. Many of the monuments were erected to honor the bravery and sacrifices of those who served. They served against overwhelming odds. Years later the descendants of those Southern soldiers served in wars for our nation. We are now trying to change, with current standards, that which was considered right in times past. Are we going to demolish the Viet Nam wall in the future? After all, many innocents were killed. We bombed, defoliated, and terrorized millions of people for reasons many can't fathom. I understand this may not be an apple to apple analogy, but in 100 years it may be. The statues can be thought of as a lesson of our past, not a glorification of slavery. Rewriting history will not change it.
There's another side of this debate that continues to be overlooked when it comes to the concept of rewriting history from a local perspective.
1. How many people today know that Confederate Park isn't the original name of the park? It was originally named Dignan Park, in honor of the city's former chairman of the Board of Public Works, Peter Dignan. Perhaps if Dignan wasn't Catholic, Jim Crow sentiment would not have led to the public space being renamed Confederate Park in 1914.
2. How many people today know that Jax is home to a Union Soldier's Monument that predates Charles Hemming's donation to the city by seven years? This suggests that many of our descendants fought for the Union as well.
3. How many people today know that Jax was the site of the first documented professional performance of the blues on stage? A performance that took place roughly two blocks north of the county courthouse.
4. How many people know that Jax was a majority black city for most of its history prior to Consolidation?
These are just a few examples where history has been rewritten or ignored over a century of tailoring story telling of the city's development from a singular perspective that dominated the thinking of city leaders during the Jim Crow era. This place has a fascinating multi-cultural history. Yet, it's 2017 and we spend more time debating over the merits of saving a false historical narrative while marginalizing our true past and identity to the point that most of us have no real recollection of it.
QuoteThe statues can be thought of as a lesson of our past, not a glorification of slavery. Rewriting history will not change it
They can be. They can also be thought of as a rallying cause for neo-nazis, the KKK and white-nationalist militias. Because, well, that's exactly what they are today.
Quote
I'd like a real honest discussion about race and how the social programs of the political parties have contributed if not were designed to keep minorities second class citizens.
Fine idea, but the political right has zero desire to have that conversation. In fact the conversation they have day in and day out with their voters is how 99%+ of beneficiaries of social programs are lazy and unworthy. You can certainly make social programs more efficient and productive, but the national GOP and related parties don't even believe in the concept of social programs, let alone reforming them.
Quote from: jlmann on August 15, 2017, 09:29:48 AM
QuoteThe statues can be thought of as a lesson of our past, not a glorification of slavery. Rewriting history will not change it
They can be. They can also be thought of as a rallying cause for neo-nazis, the KKK and white-nationalist militias. Because, well, that's exactly what they are today.
You don't suppose there is a cause and effect? Perhaps the decision to tear down the monuments became a rallying cause for the KKK and nazi's. Washington and Jefferson were slave holders... I wonder what might happen should some decide those memorials be torn down or renamed...
Can you guys be sure to post a link to all the ongoing programs and initiatives that utilize confederate monuments and our history of race relations to educate and bring people together?
I wont hold my breath though so take your time.
OR just maybe the idea of educating and learning from our past from such monuments is just a hypothetical invention that never happens in the real world so white people can justify these monuments still standing in front of city hall.
I'm pretty sure black people have a firm grasp on the effects of slavery, segregation and the Jim Crow era and don't need a monument as a reminder. I'd recommend we defer to those who've actually been effected by the figures we honor through monuments.
QuoteYou don't suppose there is a cause and effect? Perhaps the decision to tear down the monuments became a rallying cause for the KKK and nazi's. Washington and Jefferson were slave holders... I wonder what might happen should some decide those memorials be torn down or renamed...
Because owning slaves in an 18th century colony and killing your own countrymen in 1860 to defend slavery is the same thing. Also, Jefferson was an advocate for abolition so it's a tad more complicated than you make it, considering he was a founding father, not a confederate leader of no particular import to the USA. The slave-owning president argument is not a good comparison by any objective reasoning and serves to distract.
Perhaps tearing stuff down is a rallying cry currently. But we should do exactly like the gov. of VA- tell these fools to go home- they are not welcome in civilized society and then keep ripping them out.
How much more of a rallying cry to stop and let these morons win. Actual success and even perceived success will be invigorating to the white nationalists cause.
Finally try to imagine all the arguments for confederate monuments being used in Germany. "Heinrich Himmler served the German army well and did his duty. His service should be honored and remembered as a part of our history"
Im glad to hear you draw the line at confederates... not so sure about others. Conflating Himmler with Lee is a bit of a stretch... Keep ripping em out... I have no dog in the fight but I certainly see more violence...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 15, 2017, 10:11:50 AM
Im glad to hear you draw the line at confederates... not so sure about others. Conflating Himmler with Lee is a bit of a stretch... Keep ripping em out... I have no dog in the fight but I certainly see more violence...
I agree, but I see both sides to the argument. I like what Tacachale suggested before, place a union statue in the same plaza. Even rename the park, Civil War Memorial Park.. or whatever... Rename Confederate Park while you're at it... but to remove a piece of, what I perceive is historical art or architecture is as shortsighted as demolishing LaVilla. Right, wrong, or indifferent, it seems like a kneejerk reaction to a bigger problem.
Wow! Such hyperbole. I suppose if these monuments are taken down, we'll end racism. To say these statues are a rallying point for the far right is lunacy. I guess there are no bigots in places without these statues. The guy that ran over the protestors in Va. was from Maumee, OH. You suppose he got his idiot license there under a confederate statue? Tear down the Washington monument and the Jefferson memorial. They owned slaves and by todays thinking should be erased from our history. This hysteria is a lot like banning homosexuals from our society. You know, they will turn our kids gay. What a crock.
If we do consider the Hemming monument to be historically significant, it might be worth taking it down and putting it in a museum or its own protection as well:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/confederate-statue-pulled-down-north-carolina-trnd/index.html
^I can imagine this becoming a thing.
Quote
I'd like a real honest discussion about race and how the social programs of the political parties have contributed if not were designed to keep minorities second class citizens.
Quote
Fine idea, but the political right has zero desire to have that conversation. In fact the conversation they have day in and day out with their voters is how 99%+ of beneficiaries of social programs are lazy and unworthy. You can certainly make social programs more efficient and productive, but the national GOP and related parties don't even believe in the concept of social programs, let alone reforming them.
The political right has been having that discussion for decades. If you actually opened up your history books and looked at the social programs put in place over the last 100 years, it might be enlightening. Housing incentives and support for african americans that focused on concentrating poor minorities in the same areas .... away from whites. Or, welfare and aid incentives that were designed to encourage minorities if not incentivize them to remain poor and uneducated.
You see the Democratic party was the party of the South. They lost the war but they used a political strategy to marginalize and keep the minorities segregated under the guise of social aid packages. The Democrats used the political ruse to convince entire demographics to become poor slaves to their political party beholden to them for social programs that kept them fed but never ahead.
*************
Change the name of Confederate Park. There is no reason for that name. And lets talk about consolidation in our City if you want to talk history. The whites fled downtown Jacksonville for the suburbs but became increasingly anxious because the 'blacks' were gaining political control of the City. At first, retirement towers were built downtown to ensconce retired white voters downtown ... when that didnt do enough we consolidated to put an end to the possible control of City by the minorities.
Our City has a history of casual and ingrained racism in our community and in our politics. I'd rather have these discussions because quite honestly I'd rather fix the real problems so as to root out and eliminate racists than wonder if a foot tall statue is a "rallying point."
Quote from: thelakelander on August 15, 2017, 09:28:32 AM
There's another side of this debate that continues to be overlooked when it comes to the concept of rewriting history from a local perspective.
1. How many people today know that Confederate Park isn't the original name of the park? It was originally named Dignan Park, in honor of the city's former chairman of the Board of Public Works, Peter Dignan. Perhaps if Dignan wasn't Catholic, Jim Crow sentiment would not have led to the public space being renamed Confederate Park in 1914.
2. How many people today know that Jax is home to a Union Soldier's Monument that predates Charles Hemming's donation to the city by seven years? This suggests that many of our descendants fought for the Union as well.
3. How many people today know that Jax was the site of the first documented professional performance of the blues on stage? A performance that took place roughly two blocks north of the county courthouse.
4. How many people know that Jax was a majority black city for most of its history prior to Consolidation?
These are just a few examples where history has been rewritten or ignored over a century of tailoring story telling of the city's development from a singular perspective that dominated the thinking of city leaders during the Jim Crow era. This place has a fascinating multi-cultural history. Yet, it's 2017 and we spend more time debating over the merits of saving a false historical narrative while marginalizing our true past and identity to the point that most of us have no real recollection of it.
100% agree.
I looked up what the monument in Hemming Park says:
QuoteTO THE SOLDIERS OF FLORIDA
THIS SHAFT IS BY A COMRADE RAISED IN
TESTIMONY OF HIS LOVE, RECALLING DEEDS
IMMORTAL, HEROISM UNSURPASSED.
WITH RANKS UNBROKEN, RAGGED, STARVED
AND DECIMATED, THE SOUTHERN SOLDIER,
FOR DUTY'S SAKE, UNDAUNTED STOOD TO
THE FRONT OF BATTLE UNTIL NO LIGHT
REMAINED TO ILLUMINE THE FIELD OF CARNAGE,
SAVE THE LUSTRE OF HIS CHIVALRY AND COURAGE.
"NOR SHALL YOUR GLORY BE FORGOT/WHILE FAME HER RECORD KEEPS,/OR HONOR POINTS THE HALLOWED SPOT
WHERE VALOR PROUDLY SLEEPS."
CONFEDERATE MEMORIAL 1861-1865
OUR HEROES
GOD BLESS OUR COUNTRY 1898
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/gs-waymarking-images/d0e25e06-004d-40c7-acd0-1b7c1e5d895f.jpg)
The Union Soldier Memorial in Evergreen states,
QuoteIn memory of our comrades who defended the flag of the Union, on land and sea, 1861-1865."
With malice toward none, with charity for all.
Fraternity, charity and loyalty.
Erected by O.M. Mitchell Post, No. 4, Department of Florida, G.A.R., May 30, 1891.
Quote from: KenFSU on August 15, 2017, 12:40:12 PM
If we do consider the Hemming monument to be historically significant, it might be worth taking it down and putting it in a museum or its own protection as well:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/14/us/confederate-statue-pulled-down-north-carolina-trnd/index.html
^I can imagine this becoming a thing.
Alternatively, it may be destroyed by moving it to a new location. Or maybe its destroyed by the mob at the new location. The city could invest money toward other means of protecting the statues and monuments rather than trying to relocate them, if that was the driving factor behind its removal... which it is not.
Quote from: icarus on August 15, 2017, 12:49:30 PM
Quote
I'd like a real honest discussion about race and how the social programs of the political parties have contributed if not were designed to keep minorities second class citizens.
Quote
Fine idea, but the political right has zero desire to have that conversation. In fact the conversation they have day in and day out with their voters is how 99%+ of beneficiaries of social programs are lazy and unworthy. You can certainly make social programs more efficient and productive, but the national GOP and related parties don't even believe in the concept of social programs, let alone reforming them.
The political right has been having that discussion for decades. If you actually opened up your history books and looked at the social programs put in place over the last 100 years, it might be enlightening. Housing incentives and support for african americans that focused on concentrating poor minorities in the same areas .... away from whites. Or, welfare and aid incentives that were designed to encourage minorities if not incentivize them to remain poor and uneducated.
You see the Democratic party was the party of the South. They lost the war but they used a political strategy to marginalize and keep the minorities segregated under the guise of social aid packages. The Democrats used the political ruse to convince entire demographics to become poor slaves to their political party beholden to them for social programs that kept them fed but never ahead.
*************
Change the name of Confederate Park. There is no reason for that name. And lets talk about consolidation in our City if you want to talk history. The whites fled downtown Jacksonville for the suburbs but became increasingly anxious because the 'blacks' were gaining political control of the City. At first, retirement towers were built downtown to ensconce retired white voters downtown ... when that didnt do enough we consolidated to put an end to the possible control of City by the minorities.
Our City has a history of casual and ingrained racism in our community and in our politics. I'd rather have these discussions because quite honestly I'd rather fix the real problems so as to root out and eliminate racists than wonder if a foot tall statue is a "rallying point."
The Democratic party was the party of the South from post-reconstruction until the Civil Rights movement. There was no Republican Party to amount to anything. Virtually EVERYONE in the South was a Democrat then, particularly before 1964. That included those BOTH Pro and Anti Civil Rights. It is just as much true that Southern Democrats were for Civil Rights then as it is to say Southern Democrats were against Civil Rights. It is like saying people with a nose were for Civil Rights and people with a nose were against Civil Rights. Once the Civil Rights movement took hold, many Anti-Civil Rights Democrats became Republicans because of the Goldwater and Nixon campaigns.
The Cathedral buildings were all built AFTER consolidation, and only comprise a few thousand people, not enough to change anything. Consolidation was approved by a majority of both black and white voters. Overall it passed 2-1. The driving issue was the corruption, ineptitude and inefficiency of the existing city/county governments.
Oops... another one... may need dynamite...
(https://cmgajcpolitics.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/stone-mountain.jpg)
http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2017/08/15/abrams-calls-for-removal-of-confederate-faces-off-stone-mountain/
Quote from: thelakelander on August 15, 2017, 09:28:32 AM
1. How many people today know that Confederate Park isn't the original name of the park? It was originally named Dignan Park, in honor of the city's former chairman of the Board of Public Works, Peter Dignan. Perhaps if Dignan wasn't Catholic, Jim Crow sentiment would not have led to the public space being renamed Confederate Park in 1914.
Was it Jim Crow sentiment or the fact that 8,000 Confederate Veterans held a reunion there.
Confederate Park HistoryConfederate Park is located near downtown, in the Springfield area of north Jacksonville. First named Dignan Park, for a chairman of the Board of Public Works, it opened in 1907 and contained the City's first supervised playground. The United Confederate Veterans chose Jacksonville as the site for their annual reunion in 1914, and the park as the site for a monument honoring the Women of the Southland. Five months after the reunion of an estimated 8,000 former Confederate soldiers, the City renamed the park, and the monument was erected the next year. During the early decades, citizens came from all over Jacksonville to attend cultural events at the park or to see the beautiful Rose Arbor. Visitors strolled along the lovely Hogans Creek Promenade that opened in 1930, and in more recent years attend events sponsored by the Springfield Improvement Association & Woman's Club.
Quote from: JaxHistory on August 15, 2017, 03:57:28 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 15, 2017, 09:28:32 AM
1. How many people today know that Confederate Park isn't the original name of the park? It was originally named Dignan Park, in honor of the city's former chairman of the Board of Public Works, Peter Dignan. Perhaps if Dignan wasn't Catholic, Jim Crow sentiment would not have led to the public space being renamed Confederate Park in 1914.
Was it Jim Crow sentiment or the fact that 8,000 Confederate Veterans held a reunion there.
Confederate Park History
Confederate Park is located near downtown, in the Springfield area of north Jacksonville. First named Dignan Park, for a chairman of the Board of Public Works, it opened in 1907 and contained the City's first supervised playground. The United Confederate Veterans chose Jacksonville as the site for their annual reunion in 1914, and the park as the site for a monument honoring the Women of the Southland. Five months after the reunion of an estimated 8,000 former Confederate soldiers, the City renamed the park, and the monument was erected the next year. During the early decades, citizens came from all over Jacksonville to attend cultural events at the park or to see the beautiful Rose Arbor. Visitors strolled along the lovely Hogans Creek Promenade that opened in 1930, and in more recent years attend events sponsored by the Springfield Improvement Association & Woman's Club.
Racial sentiments probably contributed but you are right. it was a big deal for them to hold the reunion here and the tourism dollars that flowed in. Nevertheless, I would like to see Confederate Park's name changed. Leave the statues to the women of the Southland and the history aspects but it's time to change the name. Again, statues honoring dead Civil War soldiers from Florida and Jacksonville is one thing but the stigma from the park name has held it back. It would be nice for a name change and some investment in the park in one swift move. Maybe get some sponsorship from a prominent family or corporation to fix it up?
I'll go with Jim Crow. 1914 was at the height of a cultural shift (for the worse, IMO) in Jacksonville's history. There was a reason most of Jacksonville's enlightened black population headed north and the silent film industry migrated west around the same time. If Dignan wasn't a Catholic, that park would have had a much better chance of keeping its original name, regardless of a reunion taking place there.
QuoteConfederate Park History
Confederate Park is located near downtown, in the Springfield area of north Jacksonville. First named Dignan Park, for a chairman of the Board of Public Works, it opened in 1907 and contained the City's first supervised playground. The United Confederate Veterans chose Jacksonville as the site for their annual reunion in 1914, and the park as the site for a monument honoring the Women of the Southland. Five months after the reunion of an estimated 8,000 former Confederate soldiers, the City renamed the park, and the monument was erected the next year. During the early decades, citizens came from all over Jacksonville to attend cultural events at the park or to see the beautiful Rose Arbor. Visitors strolled along the lovely Hogans Creek Promenade that opened in 1930, and in more recent years attend events sponsored by the Springfield Improvement Association & Woman's Club.
But yeah, this quote is a good example of telling history in a way that doesn't reflect the overall picture. It's sort of like presenting the word "plantation" in a positive way. It's only positive if you when viewed from a perspective of the population that resided in the house and not the field. Needless to say, we've found a way to include plantation in the name of many of our most upscale suburban developments.
^Just to follow up on this, 16,000 African-Americans ended up leaving Jax between 1916 and 1917, due to economic conditions, white militancy, Jim Crow laws and northern companies using these things against Jax to recruit them to relocate to the northeast. That type of exodus back then was pretty insane and it still would be today.
A good link summarizing the change in Jax's culture in the early 20th century:
QuoteYour book also focuses on the question of race relations and the opportunities (or lack thereof) that Jacksonville presented for its African-American residents. What led James Weldon Johnson to remark that in the 19th century Jacksonville was "a good town for Negroes", while later it became a "one hundred percent Cracker town"?
In the 1880s when Johnson made the first statement, "a good town for Negroes", the city had just annexed the predominantly black suburb of LaVilla and blacks with organized labor had elected a Republican city council with 5 black council members, plus a black magistrate. There were black police and fire fighters. Segregation and discrimination existed, but whites generally had a sense of nobless oblige toward blacks, seen in their sponsoring Johnson to pass the bar and become the first African American member in the state. By 1907 when Johnson made the second remark about a "one hundred percent cracker town," the state had suspended local government replacing black representatives with whites; and passed the white primary and poll tax laws. Blacks were squeezed out of municipal goverment by gerrymandering and simply dismissing fire fighters and police. This shift in attitude reflected similar shifts across the South of voter disfranchisement, the segregation of public accomodations and Jim Crow. The shift reflected a hardening of attitudes by whites influenced by Populist efforts to organized poor white and black voters in the depression 1890s, the manipulation of poor white voters, and the violent attacks against blacks who attempted to vote.
http://theurbanologist.com/post/22654442708/a-new-south-city-a-conversation-with-jim-crooks
Quote from: thelakelander on August 15, 2017, 04:27:26 PM
I'll go with Jim Crow. 1914 was at the height of a cultural shift (for the worse, IMO) in Jacksonville's history. There was a reason most of Jacksonville's enlightened black population headed north and the silent film industry migrated west around the same time. If Dignan wasn't a Catholic, that park would have had a much better chance of keeping its original name, regardless of a reunion taking place there.
QuoteConfederate Park History
Confederate Park is located near downtown, in the Springfield area of north Jacksonville. First named Dignan Park, for a chairman of the Board of Public Works, it opened in 1907 and contained the City's first supervised playground. The United Confederate Veterans chose Jacksonville as the site for their annual reunion in 1914, and the park as the site for a monument honoring the Women of the Southland. Five months after the reunion of an estimated 8,000 former Confederate soldiers, the City renamed the park, and the monument was erected the next year. During the early decades, citizens came from all over Jacksonville to attend cultural events at the park or to see the beautiful Rose Arbor. Visitors strolled along the lovely Hogans Creek Promenade that opened in 1930, and in more recent years attend events sponsored by the Springfield Improvement Association & Woman's Club.
But yeah, this quote is a good example of telling history in a way that doesn't reflect the overall picture. It's sort of like presenting the word "plantation" in a positive way. It's only positive if you when viewed from a perspective of the population that resided in the house and not the field. Needless to say, we've found a way to include plantation in the name of many of our most upscale suburban developments.
The era of the teens was full of tumult in many ways because racists had an ally in the White House with Woodrow Wilson who re-segregated the military for the first time since the Civil War and propped up Jim Crow ideals in the federal government.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/wilson-legacy-racism/417549/
https://www.yahoo.com/news/charlottesvilles-aftermath-jacksonville-reassesses-confederate-monuments-statues-181542047.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/charlottesvilles-aftermath-jacksonville-reassesses-confederate-monuments-statues-181542047.html)
May be the damn Yankee in me, but I don't think that these statues and so on put Jax in a good light. Putting them in a museum seems like a fair compromise to me. We could replace the statue of the confederate soldier with something innocuous like a stone monument to the ten commandments or something. ;)
Quote from: jlmann on August 15, 2017, 10:05:25 AM
QuoteYou don't suppose there is a cause and effect? Perhaps the decision to tear down the monuments became a rallying cause for the KKK and nazi's. Washington and Jefferson were slave holders... I wonder what might happen should some decide those memorials be torn down or renamed...
Because owning slaves in an 18th century colony and killing your own countrymen in 1860 to defend slavery is the same thing. Also, Jefferson was an advocate for abolition so it's a tad more complicated than you make it, considering he was a founding father, not a confederate leader of no particular import to the USA. The slave-owning president argument is not a good comparison by any objective reasoning and serves to distract.
Perhaps tearing stuff down is a rallying cry currently. But we should do exactly like the gov. of VA- tell these fools to go home- they are not welcome in civilized society and then keep ripping them out.
"Therefore, I call on the immediate removal of President George Washington and President Andrew Jackson names from the parks...
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/08/16/jackson-washington-park-protest-presidents-slave-owners/
QuotePastor Wants Presidents' Names Removed From Washington, Jackson Parks Over Ties To Slavery
August 16, 2017 10:13 AM
CHICAGO (CBS) — A Chicago pastor has asked the Emanuel administration to remove the names of two presidents who owned slaves from parks on the South Side, saying the city should not honor slave owners in black communities.
A bronze statue of George Washington on horseback stands at the corner of 51st and King Drive, at the northwest entrance to Washington Park.
Bishop James Dukes, pastor of Liberation Christian Center, said he wants the statue gone, and he wants George Washington's name removed from the park.
"When I see that, I see a person who fought for the liberties, and I see people that fought for the justice and freedom of white America, because at that moment, we were still chattel slavery, and was three-fifths of humans," he said. "Some people out here ask me, say 'Well, you know, he taught his slaves to read.' That's almost sad; the equivalent of someone who kidnaps you, that you gave them something to eat."
Dukes said, even though Washington was the nation's first president and led the American army in the Revolutionary War, he's no hero to the black community.
"There's no way plausible that we would even think that they would erect a Malcolm X statue in Mount Greenwood, Lincoln Park, or any of that. Not that say Malcolm X was a bad guy; they just would not go for it," he said. "Native Americans would not even think about putting up a Custer statue, because of the atrocities that he plagued upon Native Americans. And for them to say to us 'just accept it' is actually insulting."
The pastor also said President Andrew Jackson's name should be removed from nearby Jackson Park, because he also was a slave owner. He said he's not necessarily asking the city rename the parks altogether. He suggested Washington Park could be named after former Mayor Harold Washington, and Jackson Park could be named after civil rights leader Rev. Jesse Jackson or singer Michael Jackson.
Dukes said he's not trying to erase history. He said black people should be able to decide who is and is not honored in their communities.
"I think we should be able to identify and decide who we declare heroes in or communities, because we have to tell the stories to our children of who these persons are," he said.
He said parks, statues, or other monuments honoring Presidents Washington and Jackson might be appropriate elsewhere, but not in black neighborhoods.
"In an African-American community, it's a slap in the face and it's a disgrace for them to honor someone who was a slave owner.
Dukes said he has sent letters to Mayor Rahm Emanuel and the Chicago Park District asking them to change the names of Washington and Jackson parks. He shared the letter on Facebook.
https://www.facebook.com/bishopjames.dukes/posts/10212365129777148
"I am feeling ambivalent that I would have to walk my child, attend a parade or enjoy a game of softball in a park that commemorates the memory of a slave owner," he wrote. "Therefore, I call on the immediate removal of President George Washington and President Andrew Jackson names from the parks located on the southeast side of Chicago. They should not have the distinct honor of being held as heroes when they actively participated in the slave trade."
Representatives for the mayor did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
A Chicago Park District spokeswoman pointed to the city's formal process for renaming parks, which allows anyone to submit a request to the superintendent. The Park District board may vote on any such request after a 45-day public comment period.
Unfortunately it sounds like a new civil war is brewing.
wow case closed
you guys were right- this one random guy in Chicago shows pretty clearly we better just leave everything as is
Quote from: jlmann on August 16, 2017, 02:29:20 PM
wow case closed
you guys were right- this one random guy in Chicago shows pretty clearly we better just leave everything as is
Nope. But this was completely predictable... and it will not just be "one random guy".
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 16, 2017, 02:46:05 PM
Quote from: jlmann on August 16, 2017, 02:29:20 PM
wow case closed
you guys were right- this one random guy in Chicago shows pretty clearly we better just leave everything as is
Nope. But this was completely predictable... and it will not just be "one random guy".
Yes, Takem Down Jax has both the Fuller Warren and Hart Bridge on the lists.
Quote from: jaxjags on August 16, 2017, 03:00:37 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 16, 2017, 02:46:05 PM
Quote from: jlmann on August 16, 2017, 02:29:20 PM
wow case closed
you guys were right- this one random guy in Chicago shows pretty clearly we better just leave everything as is
Nope. But this was completely predictable... and it will not just be "one random guy".
Yes, Takem Down Jax has both the Fuller Warren and Hart Bridge on the lists.
Lol... see... one random guy...
cool stories yall.
so we do nothing re: confed monuments? hard to tell since you offer no solution
who cares what people put on their lists? There isn't popular support for those extreme positions from the people you referenced and thus they will go nowhere
your statements amount to the "pretty soon they'll be marrying goats" argument against gay marriage.
A solution has been offered by City Council President Anna Brosche, which is a relocation of the statues off of public land to a privately owned space. In Jacksonville either you agree with that or you don't but a suggestion is now on the record and moving forward.
Quote from: jaxjags on August 16, 2017, 03:00:37 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 16, 2017, 02:46:05 PM
Quote from: jlmann on August 16, 2017, 02:29:20 PM
wow case closed
you guys were right- this one random guy in Chicago shows pretty clearly we better just leave everything as is
Nope. But this was completely predictable... and it will not just be "one random guy".
Yes, Takem Down Jax has both the Fuller Warren and Hart Bridge on the lists.
I wish they would add Berkman 2 on their list...
A very telling graph.
A timeline of when these confederate monuments were created.
https://imgur.com/OjMWPzm
(https://i.imgur.com/OjMWPzm.jpg)
Quote from: Josh on August 17, 2017, 11:37:13 AM
A very telling graph
https://imgur.com/OjMWPzm
(https://i.imgur.com/OjMWPzm.jpg)
What does the represent? Needs more context.
Quote from: acme54321 on August 17, 2017, 01:59:30 PM
Quote from: Josh on August 17, 2017, 11:37:13 AM
A very telling graph
https://imgur.com/OjMWPzm
[img]https://i.imgur.com/OjMWPzm.jpg[img]
What does the represent? Needs more context.
Whoops, didn't see that the header isn't included. It's a timeline of the creation of confederate monuments.
Quote from: Josh on August 17, 2017, 02:32:50 PM
Quote from: acme54321 on August 17, 2017, 01:59:30 PM
Quote from: Josh on August 17, 2017, 11:37:13 AM
A very telling graph
https://imgur.com/OjMWPzm
[img]https://i.imgur.com/OjMWPzm.jpg[img]
What does the represent? Needs more context.
Whoops, didn't see that the header isn't included. It's a timeline of the creation of confederate monuments.
It comes from this Southern Poverty Law Center report. I'm not sure how accurate it really is, but it does seem to be the case that monuments spiked during the "Nadir of race relations" in the early 20th century and again during the 1950s and 60s Civil Rights movement.
https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/whoseheritage_splc.pdf
(http://i.imgur.com/ukCsf8c.jpg)
Great take by Ron Littlepage:
http://jacksonville.com/opinion/ron-littlepage/2017-08-17/ron-littlepage-let-s-turn-confederate-park-history-park
Quote from: KenFSU on August 17, 2017, 09:24:39 PM
Great take by Ron Littlepage:
http://jacksonville.com/opinion/ron-littlepage/2017-08-17/ron-littlepage-let-s-turn-confederate-park-history-park
Not a bad idea.
I've said on here before, change the name of the park back to what it was. Or change it to something new. But change it; that's proper and doesn't disrespect anyone or any group.
But leave the monuments alone. Add to them? Sure. But leave them in place.
We need to take advantage of this moment in an American way, not a divisive way. Not a good white folks / bad white folks way. Not a Northern / Southern way.
Meaning honor the Union and Confederate, the freeman and the slave, the native and the immigrant, the sharecropper and the plantation owner. There's enough honor for all good efforts, disrespect for all bad efforts. No one individual or group is blame-less or sin-free.
It's time to quit shitting on people and pointing fingers, trying to make them feel guilty about something or another. None of us should be guilty about our individual or group history. This is demonstrably the greatest nation on earth and we're justifiably proud of all its history -- all of it -- because we understand the ebb and flow of life; we know the word slave is a derivation of SLAV and it reminds us that all people have been enslaved at one historic time or another; we know that black people enslaved other black people, white people enslaved other white people, etc.
Let us fix up Dignan Park and put our 21st Century stamp on it, while honoring what it originally was, has been, and will be in the future.
Why does one group of people believe they should be able to tell another group of people how they feel about a current or historic event?
Why does one group think the other wants to guilt trip their way to a historical eraser rather than a respectful acknowledgement of the modern impact of historical issues?
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on August 18, 2017, 01:06:15 PM
Quote from: RattlerGator on August 18, 2017, 11:51:19 AM
We need to take advantage of this moment in an American way, not a divisive way. Not a good white folks / bad white folks way. Not a Northern / Southern way.
Meaning honor the Union and Confederate, the freeman and the slave, the native and the immigrant, the sharecropper and the plantation owner. There's enough honor for all good efforts, disrespect for all bad efforts. No one individual or group is blame-less or sin-free.
It's time to quit shitting on people and pointing fingers, trying to make them feel guilty about something or another. None of us should be guilty about our individual or group history. This is demonstrably the greatest nation on earth and we're justifiably proud of all its history -- all of it -- because we understand the ebb and flow of life; we know the word slave is a derivation of SLAV and it reminds us that all people have been enslaved at one historic time or another; we know that black people enslaved other black people, white people enslaved other white people, etc.
Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. We do not celebrate traitors who fought against our country so they could enslave other people.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, these statutes were erected as a response to the civil rights movement-- to shove this shit in black folks' faces. These statutes were DESIGNED to be divisive. This false equivalency ("OHHHH, WON'T SOMEONE PUHLEAZE THINK OF THE POOR WHITE FOLKS?!?!?") needs to stop NOW. We don't celebrate the confederacy. Fuck these statutes and anyone's wishy-washy defense of them. This is NOT a two-sided issue. If you have a problem with the statutes being removed, then you are part of the problem.
This right here, needed to be said.
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on August 18, 2017, 01:06:15 PM
MORE IMPORTANTLY, these statutes were erected as a response to the civil rights movement-- to shove this shit in black folks' faces.
When were these statues erected?
Quote from: camarocane on August 18, 2017, 02:21:17 PM
Quote from: Murder_me_Rachel on August 18, 2017, 01:06:15 PM
MORE IMPORTANTLY, these statutes were erected as a response to the civil rights movement-- to shove this shit in black folks' faces.
When were these statues erected?
Quote from: Josh on August 17, 2017, 11:37:13 AM
A very telling graph.
A timeline of when these confederate monuments were created.
https://imgur.com/OjMWPzm
(https://i.imgur.com/OjMWPzm.jpg)
"JAX Chamber has a long history of working to ensure equal opportunity for all people. We believe in the dignity, goodness and respect of all citizens. We vehemently condemn individuals and groups that promote the despicable acts of prejudice, hate, discrimination, bigotry and racism which have no place in our community.
"We support the effort to inventory all of Jacksonville's public monuments and conduct a swift, honest and thoughtful look at who we honor, and more importantly, who is missing from our public landscape. Discussions should include how we heal wounds that may still persist from our past. Among those should be a consideration of how we memorialize our city's history in public spaces, and will most certainly involve additional tributes to Jacksonville's historical leaders.
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/jax-chamber-issues-statement-on-confederate-statue-removal
Interesting, but I was referring to the monuments in question. Seems they predate the civil rights movement by quite a few years.
Regardless, based on the data above many schools were named during the civil rights era, seems logical for this to occur as a response to desegregation. However, the same logic does not apply to the construction of our monuments in Jacksonville. I would imagine a good many confederate vets were dying off during the 1900s - 1910s.
Quote from: camarocane on August 18, 2017, 02:42:05 PM
Interesting, but I was referring to the monuments in question. Seems they predate the civil rights movement by quite a few years.
Regardless, based on the data above many schools were named during the civil rights era, seems logical for this to occur as a response to desegregation. However, the same logic does not apply to the construction of our monuments in Jacksonville. I would imagine a good many confederate vets were dying off during the 1900s - 1910s.
The city intends to take an inventory of the statues. I am sure they will find out which where placed where when.
Quote from: camarocane on August 18, 2017, 02:42:05 PM
Interesting, but I was referring to the monuments in question. Seems they predate the civil rights movement by quite a few years.
Regardless, based on the data above many schools were named during the civil rights era, seems logical for this to occur as a response to desegregation. However, the same logic does not apply to the construction of our monuments in Jacksonville. I would imagine a good many confederate vets were dying off during the 1900s - 1910s.
Somewhere in this thread, or the other one, was a great break down of the times and reasons for some of the more prominent statues here. You may have to scroll around or check a couple of other threads but the information you seek was provided.
Quote from: Jim on August 18, 2017, 02:54:17 PM
Quote from: camarocane on August 18, 2017, 02:42:05 PM
Interesting, but I was referring to the monuments in question. Seems they predate the civil rights movement by quite a few years.
Regardless, based on the data above many schools were named during the civil rights era, seems logical for this to occur as a response to desegregation. However, the same logic does not apply to the construction of our monuments in Jacksonville. I would imagine a good many confederate vets were dying off during the 1900s - 1910s.
Somewhere in this thread, or the other one, was a great break down of the times and reasons for some of the more prominent statues here. You may have to scroll around or check a couple of other threads but the information you seek was provided.
It is here (written by yours truly):
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2017-aug-jacksonvilles-civil-war-memorials
Not all of the Jacksonville monuments were created as a response to Civil Rights. The Hemming Park monument was built in 1898, after Reconstruction ended. It is also dedicated to the soldiers and doesn't say anything about the Confederacy or its cause. It's not much different than the Union Monument in Evergreen Cemetery, but it is notably much bigger and more prominent.
The renaming of Confederate Park in 1914 and the creation of the Tribute to the Women of the Southern Confederacy in 1915 were during the "Nadir of American race relations", when the city and state were cracking down on black voting and the Republican party. Those two definitely were intended to send a message.
The first two Confederate school names, Kirby Smith in 1923 and Robert E. Lee in 1928, probably weren't seen as problematic at the time. But the 5 named between 1959 and 1968 - ie, between Brown vs. the Board of Education in 1955 and full desegregation in 1971, were definitely a swipe at the civil rights movement.
The south wants monuments to give them a sense of accomplishment during a war they actually lost.
Quite possibly the largest distribution of participation trophies in world history.