Hacker News Reader

Comment by gerbal | Hacker News Reader

I'm from the North Carolina, in US south. In my opinion, Confederate monuments are not mere objects showing the long reach of history.

These monuments were built mostly from the 1890-1930 during the worst period of extrajudicial killings of black people. White mobs freely enforced violent racial apartheid with the approval and backing of state and local governments. One example, in 1898 the elected government of the majority black city of Wilmington, North Carolina was overthrown in a coup by a white mob and several dozen black people and members of the local government were executed[1].

These statues are prominently displayed in front of court houses and government buildings in towns and cities all over the south. The governments that built these monuments were extraordinarily reprehensible in their explicit and violent racism.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmington_insurrection_of_189...

View on HN

> These monuments were built mostly from the 1890-1930 during the worst period of extrajudicial killings of black people.

As a rough comparison for people not familiar with the timelines involved: this would be like Germany building Nazi statue(s) in 1970-2010. (The US Civil War ended in 1865, so +25 to +65y.)

I wonder if perhaps a better analogy is that this would be more like Germany building World War I statues in the 1940s... the Southern economy and infrastructure was by all accounts completely wiped out by the civil war, with everything that entailed.

If Germany built statues of nazi officers during 1970, and today was year 2100, ie 80 years into the future, it would very possible be that those people in 80 years from now would look at the statue in order to see a historical memory rather than nazi worshiping. 155 years (the span between 1865 and 2020) is quite a long time.

If people in year 2100 would then start and go and destroy historical objects from the second world war I would suspect people to get a bit annoyed. People born after 2100 might want to actually see the physical objects from that time period and the people in 2100 would then irreversibly making that impossible. Once destroyed an historical memory can't be remade by anyone in the future. The unrevokable nature of such acts is is why Sweden has such strict laws against it.

Naturally, if every object built between 1970 and 2010 would be defined as a historical memory today in 2020 it would not make much sense. It make more sense in year 2100 to define such objects that has survived as a historical memories. A statue that is 10 years old has much less historical values than one built 150 years ago.

> If people in year 2100 would then start and go and destroy historical objects from the second world war I would suspect people to get a bit annoyed.

I would hope that that the people in living in 2100 would still recognize the Nazis as Bad People. People recognized in 1970, and still recognize, that the Nazis were bad.

The fact that 1890-1930 people thought the Confederates who fought to support slavery were fighting for a worthy cause is that is strange IMHO.

People who go to Rome and visit the Colosseum will recognize that having slaves fighting each other to death is Bad. Killing people for amusement is Bad. Bad People do that.

Destroying the Colosseum today in 2020 in order to demonstrate against bad people would still remove the Colosseum as an historical memory of the roman empire, even if the roman empire had Bad People.

There's a difference between a huge feat of engineering from thousands of years ago and a tacky statue that was erected barely outside of (or sometimes even within) living memory.

As was established earlier, an statue built 10 years ago is very different from one built 150 years ago. A tacky statue built 10 years ago is not worth much today as a historical memory.

To make it simpler, is it acceptable to destroy a tacky statue of a slave owning roman, with the only saving grace being that its a century old?

> Colosseum as an historical memory of the roman empire, even if the roman empire had Bad People.

The Colosseum is not a monument built in someone's honour.

https://www.sightseeingtoursitaly.com/tips-articles/why-was-...

"The construction had a much larger part to play in the Flavian political governance of Rome than just a place for entertainment. In Vespasian’s mind, it would help consolidate the Flavian dynasty. He began construction of the Flavian Amphitheatre as part of a widespread propaganda campaign."

"... The most notable construction of course being the completion of the Colosseum. It instantly became a triumphal monument that promoted the Flavian reign by commemorating the family’s military achievements during the Jewish War."

"The Flavian success in the Jewish War was important as many historians believe that Titus brought over Jewish prisoners of war to contribute to the workforce needed for the construction of the amphitheatre. This very much kept with the Roman practice of humiliating their defeated enemies further, and as a way of demonstrating their power. In addition, the placement of the amphitheatre is often assumed a deliberate move by Vespasian who built the Colosseum on the land which previously held Nero, his predecessor’s, palace."

A lot of fantastic historical feats of engineering were built from the blood of the conquered. Even the street of the city where I am is built by captured prisoners of war that were put to work as slaves.

Just wait until you get to the story of Hip, hip, hooray

Reply on news.ycombinator.com