The Classical Music Guide Forums

What will they call it? "The Museum of the Great American Treason?"

******

Museum considers dropping 'Confederacy' from its name

RICHMOND, Virginia (AP) -- The Museum of the Confederacy will likely drop "Confederacy" from its name when it relocates, because of the word's negative perceptions.

"The Confederacy, and by association the museum, now symbolize racism," said a group of historians, preservationists and grant writers who studied the museum's health.

Richmond was the capital of the breakaway states during the Civil War in the 1860s, a conflict that, like slavery, remains a sensitive issue in parts of the U.S. South.

The museum is the world's largest collection of Civil War artifacts. Annual visitation has dropped from 92,000 to about 51,500 since the early 1990s.

"One of our challenges is a gap between the public's perception of who we are and the role we play, and the reality of who we are and the role we play," said Waite Rawls, the museum's president and CEO. "The repositioning we have done over the past 30 years is to be more of a modern education institution and less of a memorial ... to the Confederacy."

Rawls said the new name will depend on the new location.

Changing the name would "dilute the integrity of the museum," said Darryl Starnes, a Sons of Confederate Veterans member. Starnes also opposes relocating the museum.

"Richmond was the capital of the Confederacy," he said. "That's the place the Museum of the Confederacy should be."

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.



Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/02/20/co ... index.html

How about Museum of the Great Southern Insurrection., or, in accordance with what US Grant called it in his memoirs, Museum of the Rebellion?

It a great museum, too bad they are bowing to political correctness in the name. The museum itself and its name are a historical landmark in Richmond. Next they will be renaming the battlefield memorials from the Daughters of the Confederacy

How bout the Southern Museum of Those Who Finally Saw the Light but not before 618,222 Americans Lost Their Lives Not to Mention Another 100 Years of Quasi Apartheid

Ralph wrote:What will they call it? "The Museum of the Great American Treason?"

The Museum of White Guilt and Appeasement of a Permanent Black Underclass (formerly Slaves)

Pluralism just doesn't work.

Ted wrote:How bout the Southern Museum of Those Who Finally Saw the Light but not before 618,222 Americans Lost Their Lives Not to Mention Another 100 Years of Quasi Apartheid

*****

Nope.

That's a pretty big cop-out. I't not as if Confederacy were some kind of invented political mumbo-jumbo. It's the real name. Just as "The War Between The States" was the real name of the war, not "The Civil War".

Ralph wrote:What will they call it? "The Museum of the Great American Treason?"

PC strikes again. If people weren't so ignorant of their own history the museum wouldn't have to change its name at all.

RebLem wrote: in accordance with what US Grant called it in his memoirs, Museum of the Rebellion?

Cripes! Twice in one week! I agree with you.

Ted wrote:How bout the Southern Museum of Those Who Finally Saw the Light but not before 618,222 Americans Lost Their Lives Not to Mention Another 100 Years of Quasi Apartheid

Every great power has to have a civil war before it can mature.

Corlyss_D wrote:

Ted wrote:How bout the Southern Museum of Those Who Finally Saw the Light but not before 618,222 Americans Lost Their Lives Not to Mention Another 100 Years of Quasi Apartheid

Every great power has to have a civil war before it can mature.

*****

Monaco has never had one.

Ralph wrote:

Corlyss_D wrote:
Every great power has to have a civil war before it can mature.

*****

Monaco has never had one.

Not so!

From 1793 to 1814, Monaco was under French control. The Congress of Vienna designated Monaco as a protectorate of the Kingdom of Sardinia from 1815 until 1860 when the Treaty of Turin ceded to France the surrounding county of Nice as well as Savoy. During this time there was unrest in the towns of Menton and Roquebrune, which declared independence, hoping for annexation by Sardinia. The unrest continued until the ruling prince gave up his claim to the two towns (some 95% of the country) to France in return for four million francs. This transfer and Monaco's sovereignty was recognised by the Franco-Monegasque Treaty of 1861.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monaco

Ha! So there!

pizza wrote:

Ralph wrote:

Corlyss_D wrote:
Every great power has to have a civil war before it can mature.

*****

Monaco has never had one.

Not so!

From 1793 to 1814, Monaco was under French control. The Congress of Vienna designated Monaco as a protectorate of the Kingdom of Sardinia from 1815 until 1860 when the Treaty of Turin ceded to France the surrounding county of Nice as well as Savoy. During this time there was unrest in the towns of Menton and Roquebrune, which declared independence, hoping for annexation by Sardinia. The unrest continued until the ruling prince gave up his claim to the two towns (some 95% of the country) to France in return for four million francs. This transfer and Monaco's sovereignty was recognised by the Franco-Monegasque Treaty of 1861.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monaco

Ha! So there!

*****

Touche!

pc can go to hell. folks who buy into revisionist war history are morons.
it's the museum of the confederacy, & whomever argues for changing it can go to hell to.

...and the world can jam it's negative perceptions up it's collective butt.

clear enough?
dj

david johnson wrote:pc can go to hell. folks who buy into revisionist war history are morons.
it's the museum of the confederacy, & whomever argues for changing it can go to hell to.

...and the world can jam it's negative perceptions up it's collective butt.

clear enough?
dj

*****

Not really. Can you explain in greater detail?

...and the world can jam it's negative perceptions up it's collective butt.

It’s particularly ironic that Museum’s rationale for changing its name is to divorce itself from people like you who perpetuate negative perceptions of the Confederacy solely by denying that there should be any

Ted wrote:

...and the world can jam it's negative perceptions up it's collective butt.

It’s particularly ironic that Museum’s rationale for changing its name is to divorce itself from people like you

people like me?

please demonstrate all you know regarding me...other than i am against, from the local to the world level, the foolishness being considered.

you sound prejudiced to me.

dj

David J Wrote: .

and the world can jam it's negative perceptions up it's collective butt.

By that statement David you seemingly imply that the negative perceptions ie Slavery the Lynching of Blacks (things that were done by people who waved confederate flags) are bogus. Hey, I’m all for the south, but unfortunately perception is reality and to negate negative perceptions of the Confederacy is to indirectly endorse them

Yeah, but for the South there would be no racism in the US

Look
We’ve had this discussion a million times.
I agree it’s absurd to change the name of the museum but I’ll never agree that the “Confederacy” does not have negative baggage to contend with

Ted wrote:Look
We’ve had this discussion a million times.
I agree it’s absurd to change the name of the museum but I’ll never agree that the “Confederacy” does not have negative baggage to contend with

*****

Of course the Confederacy has "negative baggage." It was established to protect slavery, its first rationale as each Ordinance of Secession and the Confederate Constitution demonstrates. But changing the museum's name is the height of absurdity. The Confederacy wasn't a spectral image - it existed for four years and the museum is a repository of substantial memorabilia. Those who visit it in the main go to learn about history, not glorify the evil of slavery.

I've been to the museum a few times and it's a fine institution.

'By that statement David you seemingly imply that the negative perceptions ie Slavery the Lynching of Blacks (things that were done by people who waved confederate flags) are bogus. Hey, I’m all for the south, but unfortunately perception is reality and to negate negative perceptions of the Confederacy is to indirectly endorse them'

perception is reality? no.
it is inaccurate to confuse the klan lynchings and that group's adoption of the battle flag with confederate history.
negating uneducated opinions is not equal to endorsing any actions.

'Yeah, but for the South there would be no racism in the US'

...that has to be a bad joke. you believe that?

dj

david johnson wrote: 'Yeah, but for the South there would be no racism in the US'

...that has to be a bad joke. you believe that?

dj

Its sarcasm. I always find it amusing when Northerners want to project all of the country's racial issues on the South.

Actually we ought to be thankful that our ancestors were ruthless racist bastards who brought Africans over here as slaves. But for that African influence on our culture we would be another boring milquetoast Anglo Saxon country with no great artistic culture like Canada or Australia.

BWV Writes

I always find it amusing when Northerners want to project all of the country's racial issues on the South.
Actually we ought to be thankful that our ancestors were ruthless racist bastards who brought Africans over here as slaves

Are you ill? Seriously…

david johnson wrote:

Ted wrote:

...and the world can jam it's negative perceptions up it's collective butt.

It’s particularly ironic that Museum’s rationale for changing its name is to divorce itself from people like you

people like me?

please demonstrate all you know regarding me...other than i am against, from the local to the world level, the foolishness being considered.

you sound prejudiced to me.
dj

D*** david,

You have been watching too much FauxNews, and have adopted their slime 'em technique of the selective quotation. You truncated Ted's statement to make it appear particularly egregious. Yes, it started out with "Its particularly ironic that the Museum's rationale for changing its name is to divorce itself from people like you..." but the statement continued with the part of the sentence which you maliciously, and with truly evil, slanderous intent, cut out, which was "who perpetuate negative perceptions of the Confederacy solely by denying that there should be any." That makes precisely what he saw as offensive about your prior statement perfectly clear. It is, perhaps, debatable, but it is slanderous and irresponsible, and inconsistent with the collegial spirit of this forum, to try to score points by deliberately distorting the statements of others.

You owe Ted an apology. And you owe all of us an apology for obviously having thought we were stupid enough to fall for your tawdry, sleazy, scummy, slimy little FauxNews trick.

Ted wrote:BWV Writes

I always find it amusing when Northerners want to project all of the country's racial issues on the South.
Actually we ought to be thankful that our ancestors were ruthless racist bastards who brought Africans over here as slaves

Are you ill? Seriously…

Interesting point here about selective quotation

Reblem wrote:have adopted their slime 'em technique of the selective quotation. You truncated ..statement to make it appear particularly egregious. ..but the statement continued with the part of the sentence which you maliciously, and with truly evil, slanderous intent, cut out, ... It is, perhaps, debatable, but it is slanderous and irrespnsible, and inconsistent with collegial spirit of this forum, to try to score points by deliberately distorting the statements of others.

The North of course, was just as responsible for creating the institution of Slavery as the South. But don't worry Ted, you don't have to feel grateful for the genocide of the original inhabitants of your nice piece of land in upstate NY.

Yes slavery was bad, but the horror is long gone in the past and we do have it to thank for making our culture what it is today. Just as good actions have unintended negative consequences, the opposite also holds. We have reaped a huge bounty of unintended positive consequences from slavery.

BWV 1080 wrote:

Ted wrote:BWV Writes

I always find it amusing when Northerners want to project all of the country's racial issues on the South.
Actually we ought to be thankful that our ancestors were ruthless racist bastards who brought Africans over here as slaves

Are you ill? Seriously…

Interesting point here about selective quotation

Reblem wrote:have adopted their slime 'em technique of the selective quotation. You truncated ..statement to make it appear particularly egregious. ..but the statement continued with the part of the sentence which you maliciously, and with truly evil, slanderous intent, cut out, ... It is, perhaps, debatable, but it is slanderous and irrespnsible, and inconsistent with collegial spirit of this forum, to try to score points by deliberately distorting the statements of others.

The North of course, was just as responsible for creating the institution of Slavery as the South. But don't worry Ted, you don't have to feel grateful for the genocide of the original inhabitants of your nice piece of land in upstate NY.

Yes slavery was bad, but the horror is long gone in the past and we do have it to thank for making our culture what it is today. Just as good actions have unintended negative consequences, the opposite also holds. We have reaped a huge bounty of unintended positive consequences from slavery.

*****

Absolutely nothing good has emerged from the unalloyed evil of slavery.

Ought we to be grateful that the Holocaust has produced an Elie Wiesel and a state of Israel? Or should we recognize that historical evil causes change and some developments may be good?

Ralph wrote:Or should we recognize that historical evil causes change and some developments may be good?

Is not that what I just said? Slavery and the Holocaust are not directly comparable. Furthermore, time is a big factor no one is alive today that was a slave. The better analogy of a positive unintended consequence of evil would be 19th century Eastern European pogroms and the resulting immigration and Jewish population in the US.

BWV 1080 wrote:

Ralph wrote:Or should we recognize that historical evil causes change and some developments may be good?

Is not that what I just said? Slavery and the Holocaust are not directly comparable. Furthermore, time is a big factor no one is alive today that was a slave. The better analogy of a positive unintended consequence of evil would be 19th century Eastern European pogroms and the resulting immigration and Jewish population in the US.

*****

No, my point, if it wasn't clear before, is that some events were evil to such a degree that no subsequent happening can in any way ameliorate the obliquoy that should attend every view or comment. And slavery and the Holocaust clearly qualify.

Ralph wrote:

BWV 1080 wrote:

Ralph wrote:Or should we recognize that historical evil causes change and some developments may be good?

Is not that what I just said? Slavery and the Holocaust are not directly comparable. Furthermore, time is a big factor no one is alive today that was a slave. The better analogy of a positive unintended consequence of evil would be 19th century Eastern European pogroms and the resulting immigration and Jewish population in the US.

*****

No, my point, if it wasn't clear before, is that some events were evil to such a degree that no subsequent happening can in any way ameliorate the obliquoy that should attend every view or comment. And slavery and the Holocaust clearly qualify.

I don't know where you can draw the line. Certainly nothing justifies slavery ex ante, but the fact remains that there is no issue that is so key to the core of American culture. The Holocaust is a rather unique and exceptional event while slavery has been ubitquitous to the human condition since the beginning of civilization. Slavery in the South was worse than some historical forms of the practice and better than others (for example slaves in Brazilian sugar plantations were systematically worked to death).

What I resent most is the canard that slavery was a uniquely Southern institution rather than an American one. At one point the Hudson river valley had the highest population of slaves in the US.

'You owe Ted an apology. And you owe all of us an apology for obviously having thought we were stupid enough to fall for your tawdry, sleazy, scummy, slimy little FauxNews trick.'

?? what the...?
the slime was flung at what i said, i'll fling it back if i wish.
i'm not a fox fan, sorry. they do have some cute newswomen, though.
no tricks were employed. you're dreaming, man.

dj

You can equivocate and rationalize to your heart’s content that does not (to any unbiased) observer diminish the acrimonious bigotry and inanity implicit in the following statements made by you this very day


BWV 1080 Writes:

Actually we ought to be thankful that our ancestors were ruthless racist bastards who brought Africans over here as slaves. But for that African influence on our culture we would be another boring milquetoast Anglo Saxon country with no great artistic culture like Canada or Australia

Is not that what I just said? Slavery and the Holocaust are not directly comparable. Furthermore, time is a big factor no one is alive today that was a slave. The better analogy of a positive unintended consequence of evil would be 19th century Eastern European pogroms and the resulting immigration and Jewish population in the US.

Ralph Writes:

No, my point, if it wasn't clear before, is that some events were evil to such a degree that no subsequent happening can in any way ameliorate the obliquoy that should attend every view or comment. And slavery and the Holocaust clearly qualify.

Ted wrote:You can equivocate and rationalize to your heart’s content that does not (to any unbiased) observer diminish the acrimonious bigotry and inanity implicit in the following statements made by you this very day


BWV 1080 Writes:

Actually we ought to be thankful that our ancestors were ruthless racist bastards who brought Africans over here as slaves. But for that African influence on our culture we would be another boring milquetoast Anglo Saxon country with no great artistic culture like Canada or Australia

Is not that what I just said? Slavery and the Holocaust are not directly comparable. Furthermore, time is a big factor no one is alive today that was a slave. The better analogy of a positive unintended consequence of evil would be 19th century Eastern European pogroms and the resulting immigration and Jewish population in the US.

Ralph Writes:

No, my point, if it wasn't clear before, is that some events were evil to such a degree that no subsequent happening can in any way ameliorate the obliquoy that should attend every view or comment. And slavery and the Holocaust clearly qualify.

Forget about it Ted, you are hopelessly out of your depth here. I have been quite amused however by your sanctimonious BS. If it is bigoted to say, albeit in a hyperbolic way, that the African contribution to our culture is of supreme importance and the primary factor in what separates American culture from other ones of Anglo Saxon origin then I am a bigot.

Right, I don't want to argue either, I’ll just let your own words to the talking

RebLem wrote: D*** david,

You have been watching too much FauxNews, and have adopted their slime 'em technique of the selective quotation. You truncated Ted's statement to make it appear particularly egregious. Yes, it started out with "Its particularly ironic that the Museum's rationale for changing its name is to divorce itself from people like you..." but the statement continued with the part of the sentence which you maliciously, and with truly evil, slanderous intent, cut out, which was "who perpetuate negative perceptions of the Confederacy solely by denying that there should be any." That makes precisely what he saw as offensive about your prior statement perfectly clear. It is, perhaps, debatable, but it is slanderous and irresponsible, and inconsistent with the collegial spirit of this forum, to try to score points by deliberately distorting the statements of others.

You owe Ted an apology. And you owe all of us an apology for obviously having thought we were stupid enough to fall for your tawdry, sleazy, scummy, slimy little FauxNews trick.

That's kind of funny. Because just a few posts later, Ted did precisely the same thing to Steve. He cut off Steve's statement at the point where he said we should be thankful for slavery, without including the second portion of the statement, which clarified the first portion. I have a feeling Ted didn't pick that up from watching Faux News. That's not very "fair and balanced" of you.

Funny how historical slavery seems so much more important a cause than actual slavery taking place in Somalia and elsewhere: http://www.gvnet.com/humantrafficking/Somalia.htm

Oh, but the enemy is the political Right in English-speaking countries, not slavery when it’s done by Africans and Moslems today. Sorry, I forgot.

Brendan wrote:Funny how historical slavery seems so much more important a cause than actual slavery taking place in Somalia and elsewhere: http://www.gvnet.com/humantrafficking/Somalia.htm

Oh, but the enemy is the political Right in English-speaking countries, not slavery when it’s done by Africans and Moslems today. Sorry, I forgot.

*****

I have no knowledge of anti-slavery organizations in Australia but they are active here in the U.S. Specifically, in New York several groups actively inform the public about slavery and seek its end. Before the performance of Mozart's "Zaide" at Lincoln Center last summer there was a powerful presentation to a large audience about contemporary slavery with a panel that included the leading scholar in the field.

Bear in mind, Brendan, that in the U.S. "historical slavery" had a formal end date but its reverberations affect American society in ways that contemporary foreign issues don't.

Ralph wrote:I have no knowledge of anti-slavery organizations in Australia but they are active here in the U.S. Specifically, in New York several groups actively inform the public about slavery and seek its end. Before the performance of Mozart's "Zaide" at Lincoln Center last summer there was a powerful presentation to a large audience about contemporary slavery with a panel that included the leading scholar in the field.

Bear in mind, Brendan, that in the U.S. "historical slavery" had a formal end date but its reverberations affect American society in ways that contemporary foreign issues don't.

And Australia was founded on the backs of guys and gals in irons, shaping our country. Still, I care less about my Irish and Cockney ancestor's woes than the fact the slave markets of Darfur are openly doing business once more. It isn't a state by state (voting booth by voting booth) or colour issue here, so I guess our reverberations don't make the multicultural agenda.

The fact that the current slave trade doesn't is an issue for me.

So come all me hearties, let's roam the mountains high!
Together we will punder, together we will die.
We'll wander over valleys, and gallop over plains,
And scorn to live in slavery, bound down with iron chains!
The Wild Colonial Boy

Barry Writes: That's kind of funny. Because just a few posts later, Ted did precisely the same thing to Steve. He cut off Steve's statement at the point where he said we should be thankful for slavery, without including the second portion of the statement, which clarified the first portion. I have a feeling Ted didn't pick that up from watching Faux News. That's not very "fair and balanced" of you.

Barry go soak your head.. Any sentence that starts with we ought to be thankful that our ancestors were ruthless racist bastards who brought Africans over here as slaves. can't be clarified, rationalized or justified--Go say that to an African American—I beg you

Furthermore I quoted the entire passage in my last post to him

Ted wrote:Barry go soak your head.. Any sentence that starts with we ought to be thankful that our ancestors were ruthless racist bastards who brought Africans over here as slaves. can't be clarified, rationalized or justified--Go say that to an African American—I beg you

Furthermore I quoted the entire passage in my last post to him

Ted,
I don't have a problem with what you did. I do it (only putting a portion of a quote in my post) occassionally too when it's not inappropriate. I just thought it was funny that Reb went at a conservative poster for doing the same thing that you did a few posts later.

Me Sorry Barry