[saalweachter]

Some context for non-Americans: the 1920s (when the film was released) was the hey-day of Civil War revisionism; that was when most of the statues of Confederate generals were erected and the narrative of the noble Confederates was written. "1920s film made Confederates the good guys" is one of the least surprising things ever.

[hilbert42]

Thanks for that, that's a perspective of which I was unaware but I've long been aware there was a reasonable level of criticism when the film was released.

It's notable from this outsider's perspective that there's still levels of animosity over the War and that statues of Lee get desecrated and or damaged from time to time.

[saalweachter]

Well, it wasn't just putting up statues and making movies where the Confederates were the good guys -- the 1920s was also the peak of organized white supremacy like the Ku Klux Klan, when lynching and other mob violence was common. The Tulsa massacre, which involved burning one of the wealthiest black neighborhoods in the United States, was only 5 years before this film came out.

You can kind of think of this era as a sort of "anti-Civil Rights movement", and it was the same group of people burning houses and lynching and putting up statues and working politically to keep black Americans disenfranchised. And it's still a salient issue today -- disenfranchisement of minorities (closing polls in minority neighborhoods to create multi-hour waits to vote; gerrymandering to concentrate minorities in a small number of Congressional districts; disproportional felony convictions and the accompanying loss of franchise) is an issue in every election. Hell, one of the initial backlashes against public health measures early on in the COVID pandemic was that the early waves primarily affected large cities and the initial mortality rates were higher for blacks than whites, so it was viewed as a problem more for blacks than whites, and therefore, not a problem.

The white-washing of Lee and the other Confederate traitors is still part of modern American politics -- it reframes the Civil War from a bunch of rich slave-owners rebelling against the United States to maintain their power and privilege, and getting hundreds of thousands of other people killed for it, to cast these men as victims of a rapacious Federal government meddling where it didn't belong. This narrative that was (and is still, eg, Shelby County v Holder) used to claim the Federal government had no right to improve the lives of minorities over the wishes of the States, is now used to claim the Federal government has no right to mandate minimum wages, or environmental regulations, or educational standards, or a thousand other things, over the wishes of the individual States.

So it's still modern politics to cast down Lee and declare that he was not a noble martyr fighting for States Rights against an oppressive Federal government, just a traitor to his oaths who was personally and politically reprehensible. And to point out that States Rights have always just been a political shell game -- Slave States were happy to use the power of the Federal government to override the will of Free States, and force them to extradite escaped slaves back to the Slave States, just like issues like abortion are "sent back to the States" until a Federal ban can be passed, at which point it will miraculously no longer be an issue for the States to resolve.

It's the old quote -- "The past is never dead. It's not even past."

[scarface_74]

There are eight states that have a Confederate memorial day and two that combine Martin Luther King and Robert E. Lees birthday.

[hilbert42]

"It's the old quote -- "The past is never dead. It's not even past."

Right, how very true. One of my aunts married a French soldier at the end of WWII and went to live in France. She often told me La Révolution française was far from settled, just scratch the surface anywhere in France and you'll still find much contention. BTW, it was ≈235 years ago.

I've been to the US many times, have relatives who live there and have even worked there so I'm somewhat familiar with many of those events you've.mentioned. I suppose I'm still surprised by the intensity and vehemence of the attacks—whether verbal or physical—towards both the black population and the various underclasses/undeprived. That's not say this country I'm in is lily-white by any means—we've had our fair share of atrocities in the past—but present-day vitriol and animosity towards certain peoples certainly isn't as intense as I've seen it in the US. The question is why.

Let me give you two instances that come to mind (and I've more) that I think wouldn't be commonplace here (but that's not to say they couldn't happen as sometimes they do). First, I was the only person in a manually-driven elevator and its driver was black and as I was alighting I said to him "thank you very much sir" and with a great big smile he said "and thank you too sir, not many people are so nice and say that to me these days". I've never forgotten the encounter.

The other example is some years back I was traveling around California in a minivan with about a half dozen of my compatriots after having been to a computer conference and we were in Redwood City and had to refuel. At the servics station we were served by a local who asked where we were from and we told him. He then went into a tirade that I'll never forget which I won't repeat in full here to the effect "you're fucking lucky that down there you don't have any of those… (you can guess the rest), and that was only a small part of his outrageous and vitriolic tirade. It wasn't just his tirade that so surprised me but that he was so open to strangers who he'd never met previously. BTW, that exchange was well after the 1960s civil rights stuff—mid 1980s in fact.

Despite me agreeing with your quote, as I said I suppose I've never been fully reconciled to or able to get my head around why the US continues to cycle over these issues with such intensity for so long. One would have thought that after 150+ years things would have settled down much more than they actually have. That said, I accept that discrimination and racism never seem to fully go away no matter where one is, although nowadays in many places it's softer and more nuanced that it once was.

My position is pretty straightforward, that is I've found there's a small percentage of bastards in every country and racial group on the planet (certainly in ones where I've been for some length of time to know) but almost without exception most people with whom I've met have been kind and nice to me. I always try to be nice to those who I meet and deal with and again—almost without exception—they reciprocate similarly—no matter who they are and where they come from.

That's the rough outline, I'd like to develop that discussion further and make specific comments on the issues and instances you've mentioned. Trouble is, to make my position clear and not be misinterpreted and or misunderstood would take some considerable effort and lots of text not to mention the large amount of time involved—and anyway it'd be too much for a HN post.

One thing I've learned online—and HN is no exception (albeit it better than most)—no matter how neutral or impartial one is when discussing these matters at any reasonable depth it's almost impossible not to upset some people, they'll often take great umbrage at the slightest provocation and or at the most innocuous comment for reasons I find unfathomable.

Once I was taught formal argument and debating, they've structure and people can (mostly) say what they want without fisticuffs breaking out. Unfortunately, this art of debating propositions in an orderly manner on the web is almost unheard of. It's why I usually steer clear of such topics.