Can we agree this deeply rooted in white supremacy?

[alexava 6,973]

8 minutes ago, cole256 said:

You define it, you introduced it  into the conversation, what did you mean when you said it?

I did not. It’s the basis of the thread. I didn’t start the thread. I think it has different interpretations. I just want to know how you perceive it in the context of the name of a school. 

[cole256 17,084]

Just now, alexava said:

I did not. It’s the basis of the thread. I didn’t start the thread. I think it has different interpretations. I just want to know how you perceive it in the context of the name of a school. 

So that's not the conversation I was having. The convo went to the shouldn't have to get rid of statues and people that are offended by it are just looking for something. So from that I pointed out how these evil men are still celebrated to this day.

So I could ask you what's the context to you between white supremacy and people (black) are looking for things to be offended about.

White supremacy to me is white people thinking their race is superior to other races and they think when it's something against them then heaven and hell needs to be moved but when it's something that they have done against somebody else then just like you said in this thread, people are too sensitive and need to get over it.....

 

[alexava 6,973]

1 minute ago, cole256 said:

So that's not the conversation I was having. The convo went to the shouldn't have to get rid of statues and people that are offended by it are just looking for something. So from that I pointed out how these evil men are still celebrated to this day.

So I could ask you what's the context to you between white supremacy and people (black) are looking for things to be offended about.

White supremacy to me is white people thinking their race is superior to other races and they think when it's something against them then heaven and hell needs to be moved but when it's something that they have done against somebody else then just like you said in this thread, people are too sensitive and need to get over it.....

 

Give me an example of something white people think is against them requiring heaven and hell to be moved. 

[cole256 17,084]

2 minutes ago, alexava said:

Give me an example of something white people think is against them requiring heaven and hell to be moved. 

I'm not doing the ol you keep asking me questions and not answer anything. And also I don't think in the context of which you want to argue. When I say something against them I'm talking independent situations that come up. Something like if a white person destroys property as opposed to a black person does it.

Of course I'm not talking about anything set up against white people as a society.....You don't have those things because you weren't enslaved or ruled by another group. You didn't go through the things black people had to go thru so there wouldn't be any examples of unfair hardships for white people to think is set up against them.

But I will give you these examples something like affirmative action being created because of power white people had that was abused.....This was created because of wrong white people did but white people complain about this more than anybody.....actually more than likely it's going to be a white person complaining before anybody when it comes to anybody getting any type of benefit. To me that really shows how white people wouldn't sit back for one second and shut up if they were being treated unfairly. 

But before moving into any of that please tell me how it's black people looking for something to complain about having a problem with a school being named after a man who believed in slavery, believed that a black person was less of a human, was a serial killer.....you really can't see an issue with that? 

[Son of A Tiger 561]

2 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Why do you want to defend the south.  The cause of the south was utter inhumanity.  Those who fought for the south were useful idiots fighting for nothing other than the financial interests of the plantation/slave owners.

There is no way you can make the old South,,, righteous.

So by showing facts that, in his own words, that Sherman committed war crimes is defending the South and making it righteous?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

3 minutes ago, Son of A Tiger said:

So by showing facts that, in his own words, that Sherman committed war crimes is defending the South and making it righteous?

No. 

[Son of A Tiger 561]

5 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

No. 

Then why your post I quoted?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 minute ago, Son of A Tiger said:

Then why your post I quoted?

I apologize.  I assumed your indictment of Sherman was an attempt to defend the South.

So, you agree that the cause of the South, perpetuation of slavery,  was purely inhumane?

 

[Son of A Tiger 561]

3 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I apologize.  I assumed your indictment of Sherman was an attempt to defend the South.

So, you agree that the cause of the South, perpetuation of slavery,  was purely inhumane?

 

No and I won't get off on a never ending discussion of the Civil War. IMHO the war started over states rights and slavery soon became a big issue. Pres. Washington had slaves and was sure not a southerner. Gen. Grant had slaves and sent them off to Kansas to hide them. I could go on but I will leave it there since the topic has been beaten to death her many times and we all have different opinions.

[Son of A Tiger 561]

[icanthearyou 4,463]

11 minutes ago, Son of A Tiger said:

No and I won't get off on a never ending discussion of the Civil War. IMHO the war started over states rights and slavery soon became a big issue. Pres. Washington had slaves and was sure not a southerner. Gen. Grant had slaves and sent them off to Kansas to hide them. I could go on but I will leave it there since the topic has been beaten to death her many times and we all have different opinions.

Exactly what I thought.  You do wish to defend the South.

George Washington lived in Virginia (Mount Vernon).  He was a "Southerner".

You can also learn the reality of Grant here: https://acwm.org/blog/myths-misunderstandings-grant-slaveholder/

And no, the war was about slavery.  It is in almost every writing on succession.  "States rights" didn't really become a narrative until after the war.  Before, it was simply a way of duping poor dirt farmers into fighting for the economic interests of the wealthy plantation owners (whose wealth was based in slavery).

The old South was not righteous.  It was the epitome of inhumanity.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

18 minutes ago, Son of A Tiger said:

Restore equality and, you will have at least some of that back.

[AUDub 11,158]

22 minutes ago, Son of A Tiger said:

No and I won't get off on a never ending discussion of the Civil War. IMHO the war started over states rights and slavery soon became a big issue. Pres. Washington had slaves and was sure not a southerner. Gen. Grant had slaves and sent them off to Kansas to hide them. I could go on but I will leave it there since the topic has been beaten to death her many times and we all have different opinions.

Welp!

We're dealing with a moron here. 

[alexava 6,973]

33 minutes ago, cole256 said:

I'm not doing the ol you keep asking me questions and not answer anything. And also I don't think in the context of which you want to argue. When I say something against them I'm talking independent situations that come up. Something like if a white person destroys property as opposed to a black person does it.

Of course I'm not talking about anything set up against white people as a society.....You don't have those things because you weren't enslaved or ruled by another group. You didn't go through the things black people had to go thru so there wouldn't be any examples of unfair hardships for white people to think is set up against them.

But I will give you these examples something like affirmative action being created because of power white people had that was abused.....This was created because of wrong white people did but white people complain about this more than anybody.....actually more than likely it's going to be a white person complaining before anybody when it comes to anybody getting any type of benefit. To me that really shows how white people wouldn't sit back for one second and shut up if they were being treated unfairly. 

But before moving into any of that please tell me how it's black people looking for something to complain about having a problem with a school being named after a man who believed in slavery, believed that a black person was less of a human, was a serial killer.....you really can't see an issue with that? 

It’s called history. It happened. Slavery happened. It was carried out by many people.very prominent people who were very accomplished in many aspects of life, of statehood, of business while building a nation which happens to be the greatest on earth. I have zero guilt for that. None. I don’t care what that school has for a name. I don’t know enough to really have an opinion on NBForrest but there are people who see more than a clan leader there. And he also denounced it later.  Calhoun Community college was named in 1965. Why? IDK maybe white supremacy? The fact is few people know who he even is. He’s extremely accomplished in several aspects of government. He was a proponent for slavery who died a decade before the civil war. The college was named 60 years ago. Every few years people (very few people, usually white libs) start raising hell wanting to change it. It is what it is. So yes I do think they are too sensitive and need to get over it. I don’t have any opinion about JCCalhoun either. That’s just been Calhoun  Community College for nearly 60 years and it makes no economic or logical sense to change it. Same with Military Bases named after pro slavery figures. You can’t erase that history. You will always find something to be offended by. So why try to appease it. Just accept it.

     Affirmative action is a totally different issue that I’m going to save for another day. 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

9 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Welp!

We're dealing with a moron here. 

Lots of us older folks were taught the cultural lies.  Some just don't want to see reality.

[AUDub 11,158]

3 hours ago, Son of A Tiger said:

Sherman war crimes:

Was Sherman a War Criminal? – Discerning History

"The Federal troops, Bummers as they were called, routinely violated orders along the march and burnt many houses along the way."

I noted this above. To the extent crimes like murder and rape occurred,  the bummers were the perpetrators, not the regular army. 

3 hours ago, Son of A Tiger said:

Sherman convicted by his own words (ajc.com)

Sherman gave advance warning to the city. In fact that was the basis for his famous letter to Atlanta.

Headquarters Military Division of the Mississippi, in the Field, Atlanta, Georgia, September 12, 1864.

James M. Calhoun, Mayor, E.E. Rawson, S.C. Wells, representing City Council of Atlanta.

Gentlemen,

I have your letter of the 11th, in the nature of a petition to revoke my orders removing all the inhabitants from Atlanta. I have read it carefully, and give full credit to your statements of the distress that will be occasioned, any yet shall not revoke my orders, because they were not designed to meet the humanities of the case, but to prepare for the future struggles in which millions of good people outside of Atlanta have a deep interest. We must have Peace, not only in Atlanta, but in All America. To secure this, we must stop the war that now desolates our once happy and favored country. To stop war, we must defeat the rebel armies which are now arrayed against the laws and Constitution that all must respect and obey. To defeat those armies, we must prepare the way to reach them in their recesses, provided with the arms and instruments which enable us to accomplish our purpose. Now I know the vindictive nature of our enemy, that we may have many years of military operations from this quarter; and, therefore, deem it wise and prudent to prepare in time. The use of Atlanta for warlike purposes is inconsistent with its character as a home for families. There will be no manufactures, commerce, or agriculture here, for the maintenance of families, and sooner or later want will compel the inhabitants to go. Why no go now, when all the arrangements are completed for the transfer, instead of waiting till the plunging shot of contending armies will renew the scenes of the past month? Of course, I do not apprehend any such thing at this moment, but you do not suppose this army will be here until the war is over. I cannot discuss this subject with you fairly, because I cannot impart to you what we propose to do, but I assert that our military plans make it necessary for the Inhabitants to go away, and I can only renew my offer of services to make their exodus in any direction as easy and comfortable as possible. 

You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our Country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to Secure Peace. But you cannot have Peace and a Division of our Country. If the United States submits to a Division now it will not stop, but will go on until we reap the fate of Mexico, which is Eternal War. The United States does and must assert its authority, wherever it once had power; for, if it relaxes one bit to pressure, it is gone, and I believe that such is the National Feeling. This Feeling assumes various shapes, but always comes back to that of Union. Once admit the Union, once more acknowledge the Authority of the National Government, and, instead of devoting your houses and streets and roads to the dread uses of war, I and this army become at once your protectors and supporters, shielding you from danger, let it come from what quarter it may. I know that a few individuals cannot resist a torrent of error and passion, such as swept the South into rebellion, but you can point out, so that we may know those who desire a government, and those who insist on war and its desolation.

You might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against these terrible hardships of war. They are inevitable, and the only way the people of Atlanta can hope once more to live in peace and quiet at home, is to stop the war, which can only be done by admitting that it began in error and is perpetuated in pride.  We don't want your negroes, or your horses, or your houses, or your hands, or any thing that you have, but we do want and will have a just obedience to the laws of the United States. That we will have, and, if it involves the destruction of your improvements, we cannot help it.  You have heretofore read public sentiment in your newspapers, that live by falsehood and excitement; and the quicker you seek for truth in other quarters, the better.

I repeat then that, by the original compact of Government, the United States had certain rights in Georgia, which have never been relinquished and never will be; that the South began war by seizing forts, arsenals, mints, custom-houses, etc., etc., long before Mr. Lincoln was installed, and before the South had one jot or title of provocation. I myself have seen in Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi, hundreds of thousands of women and children fleeing from your armies and desperadoes, hungry and with bleeding feet. In Memphis, Vicksburg, and Mississippi, we fed thousands upon thousands of families of rebel soldiers left in our hands, and whom we could not see starve. Now that war comes home to you, you feel very different. You depreciate its horrors, but did not feel them when you sent car-loads of soldiers and ammunition, and moulded shells and shot, to carry war into Kentucky and Tennessee, to desolate the homes of hundreds of thousands of good people who only asked to live in peace at their old homes, and under the Government of their inheritance. But these comparisons are idle. I want peace, and believe it (can) only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect and early success.

But my dear sirs when Peace does come, you may call on me for any thing-Then I will share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter.

Now you must go, and take with you the old and feeble, feed and nurse them, and build for them, in more quiet places, proper habitations to shield them against the (wea)ther until the mad passions of men cool down, and allow the Union and (pe)ace once more to settle over your old homes at Atlanta. Yrs., in haste,

W.T. Sherman

[cole256 17,084]

11 minutes ago, alexava said:

It’s called history. It happened. Slavery happened. It was carried out by many people.very prominent people who were very accomplished in many aspects of life, of statehood, of business while building a nation which happens to be the greatest on earth. I have zero guilt for that. None. I don’t care what that school has for a name. I don’t know enough to really have an opinion on NBForrest but there are people who see more than a clan leader there. And he also denounced it later.  Calhoun Community college was named in 1965. Why? IDK maybe white supremacy? The fact is few people know who he even is. He’s extremely accomplished in several aspects of government. He was a proponent for slavery who died a decade before the civil war. The college was named 60 years ago. Every few years people (very few people, usually white libs) start raising hell wanting to change it. It is what it is. So yes I do think they are too sensitive and need to get over it. I don’t have any opinion about JCCalhoun either. That’s just been Calhoun  Community College for nearly 60 years and it makes no economic or logical sense to change it. Same with Military Bases named after pro slavery figures. You can’t erase that history. You will always find something to be offended by. So why try to appease it. Just accept it.

     Affirmative action is a totally different issue that I’m going to save for another day. 

Ok cool so a couple of things. You still missed it. I think everybody knew you didn't care the question was can you see why the people that were enslaved cared. 

So you think as long as people are accomplished then they are great?

Also keep that same energy now then. When talking about let's say a black being killed, you shouldn't have a problem with he was suspended from school at one time in his life or whatever will be brought up to make sure we don't see him as an innocent person. 

Also you should keep that energy when talking about 9/11 or whatever. I don't ever see too many people telling a Jewish person to get over it either. 

I guess a better way to ask could you see be offended if it was YOUR father killed? YOUR daughter raped? YOUR mother spit on? YOUR son killed and beaten so bad you can't even see his face? Then could you see not wanting to hear that you just want something to complain about? 

You see you can dance around this all you want, but I already knew you don't care. Anybody could tell by the stuff that you post daily. But you aren't being honest when you say you can't see why it would be a problem to black people. You just don't care, but it isn't confusing to see. When you say it's basically just something to complain about you really are stepping very close to a line showing your character. Then you'd be the first guy on here crying if someone thought you were racist or something though.

That's what's hilarious to me. It's those of you that viewes and belief lines up EXACTLY the same as a racist person 29 of 30 questions, then you want to complain and fight if somebody thinks you are one of them......

And like I said don't care and can't see this at all but will post 10 times out of 10 about if you feel a black guy got a job because of affirmative action....that's the big deal.....

Then I get crap on here when I point out of course most of the people on here that fits your demographics are going to dislike me on this forum.....some stuff is just going to have to die out. You don't care about anything that doesn't concern yourself. But when someone in your family link up with a black person then they have children.....well the children are going to care about their ancestors. And when they all look back at what was said by whom, I'm very comfortable with people reading my thoughts and saw what I stood for.

[homersapien 11,393]

1 hour ago, Son of A Tiger said:

No and I won't get off on a never ending discussion of the Civil War. IMHO the war started over states rights and slavery soon became a big issue. Pres. Washington had slaves and was sure not a southerner. Gen. Grant had slaves and sent them off to Kansas to hide them. I could go on but I will leave it there since the topic has been beaten to death her many times and we all have different opinions.

Washington not a southerner?

As for Grant:

https://acwm.org/blog/myths-misunderstandings-grant-slaveholder/

What's next?  The war was really about "state rights"?  State rights to do what?

Good grief. What an embarrassment you are.

[AUDub 11,158]

I’ll defer to a prior post of mine detailing Grant and his slave ownership:

Because the odious lunatic I replied to therein either didn’t read it or retains information about as well as a salad colander retains water. 

Edited June 14, 2023 by AUDub

[Mims44 1,879]

11 hours ago, AUDub said:

Rape and murder was the exception, not the norm. To the extent it was committed, it was more commonly the "bummers," not the regular army in the course of the march. 

As I said, his army was under strict orders to leave the unoffending populace be, and for the most part they did. 

It's also dumb to wrap up the common practice of foraging that came with supporting most armies during the period.

And regarding "you shouldn't have started a war with us then," damn right. The south's mouth wrote a check it's ass couldn't cash and Sherman was laser focused on making that abundantly clear. 

You jumped into a multi-quoted conversation with Homer. So it's a bit out of context.

Homers statement was in the gist of, the ruling body of this land went to war, therefore the populace deserves what happens to it.

 

Next... Burning and salting land is not the same as foraging... weird you would ever conflate the two. It's also odd to me that two posters (you and @homersapien) who are usually pretty keen on seeing the US's miss-steps are so adamant that nothing overboard happened here and the US response was perfectly in context with the struggles it was facing. 

You did not answer my earlier question to you regarding the general order that legalized the rape of confederate women (New Orleans). Did those women deserve to be raped since the ruling aristocracy decided to secede? Would you have been in favor if Bush/Obama had decided to legalize rape in Iraq/Afghanistan, or is it an antiquated practice? If so, can you provide the year in which legalized rape has become faux pas

[Mims44 1,879]

7 hours ago, homersapien said:

Washington not a southerner?

As for Grant:

https://acwm.org/blog/myths-misunderstandings-grant-slaveholder/

What's next?  The war was really about "state rights"?  State rights to do what?

Good grief. What an embarrassment you are.

I really need to be in bed... but I can't help myself.

 

 

"The War" was about secession. Wanna start the discussion again where you say I am obfuscating the truth with my facts?  

Still one of my all time favs btw  

[AUDub 11,158]

43 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

Homers statement was in the gist of, the ruling body of this land went to war, therefore the populace deserves what happens to it.

Ah has it begun to sink in that Sherman's point was "war is cruelty?"

That populace fed, clothed and manned that army. They don't get to dodge responsibility for that.

I'd suggest reading his letter to Atlanta for his thoughts. Here, I'll even quote a relevant portion for you:

7 hours ago, AUDub said:

I repeat then that, by the original compact of Government, the United States had certain rights in Georgia, which have never been relinquished and never will be; that the South began war by seizing forts, arsenals, mints, custom-houses, etc., etc., long before Mr. Lincoln was installed, and before the South had one jot or title of provocation. I myself have seen in Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi, hundreds of thousands of women and children fleeing from your armies and desperadoes, hungry and with bleeding feet. In Memphis, Vicksburg, and Mississippi, we fed thousands upon thousands of families of rebel soldiers left in our hands, and whom we could not see starve. Now that war comes home to you, you feel very different. You depreciate its horrors, but did not feel them when you sent car-loads of soldiers and ammunition, and moulded shells and shot, to carry war into Kentucky and Tennessee, to desolate the homes of hundreds of thousands of good people who only asked to live in peace at their old homes, and under the Government of their inheritance. But these comparisons are idle. I want peace, and believe it (can) only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect and early success.

Translated: "you fools don't get to sit comfortably and wax poetic about a brutal war you visited upon other, unoffending people, then bitch and moan when I return the favor."

43 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

Next... Burning and salting land is not the same as foraging... weird you would ever conflate the two. It's also odd to me that two posters (you and @homersapien) who are usually pretty keen on seeing the US's miss-steps are so adamant that nothing overboard happened here and the US response was perfectly in context with the struggles it was facing. 

You're a stark raving lunatic if you think Sherman "salted the land" lol. Do you know how much salt it takes to make land un-arable, and how valuable of a commodity it was during the war?

Sherman did some ugly things, yeah. No one denies that. His mission was, as he phrased it, to "make Georgia howl." And in doing so he took away the Confederacy's ability to meaningfully wage war and broke their will to do it in the first place.

Not to spew a "whataboutism," but you conveniently ignore that the Confederacy practiced scorched earth tactics as well. A lot of the damage to Atlanta stemmed from fleeing confederates setting fire to materiel upon their departure, and Joe Wheeler's cavalry force was infamous for their pillage of their own populace in Georgia. Jubal Early, in his raiding through the north, extorted towns for money and material, and if they did not meet his demands, had those towns eradicated.

43 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

You did not answer my earlier question to you regarding the general order that legalized the rape of confederate women (New Orleans). Did those women deserve to be raped since the ruling aristocracy decided to secede? Would you have been in favor if Bush/Obama had decided to legalize rape in Iraq/Afghanistan, or is it an antiquated practice? If so, can you provide the year in which legalized rape has become faux pas

That is not what that order did unless you're playing extremely fast and loose with the language of that order. 

Butler was an petty idiot to put something like that on paper, and it was universally reviled and eventually contributed to his removal, but it wasn't meant to authorize rape. What it was meant to do is spell out "if these ladies aren't behaving like proper ladies, don't treat them like proper ladies."

Edited June 15, 2023 by AUDub

[AUDub 11,158]

8 minutes ago, Mims44 said:

I really need to be in bed... but I can't help myself.

"The War" was about secession. Wanna start the discussion again where you say I am obfuscating the truth with my facts?  

Still one of my all time favs btw  

Every attempt at compromise leading up to the war dealt with the peculiar institution. 

The south seceded over a perceived threat to slavery. Nevermind that had they elected not to secede Lincoln had no such power to end the institution. 

Edited June 15, 2023 by AUDub

[TexasTiger 12,964]

47 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Ah has it begun to sink in that Sherman's point was "war is cruelty?"

That populace fed, clothed and manned that army. They don't get to dodge responsibility for that.

I'd suggest reading his letter to Atlanta for his thoughts. Here, I'll even quote a relevant portion for you:

Translated: "you fools don't get to sit comfortably and wax poetic about a brutal war you visited upon other, unoffending people, then bitch and moan when I return the favor."

You're a stark raving lunatic if you think Sherman "salted the land" lol. Do you know how much salt it takes to make land un-arable, and how valuable of a commodity it was during the war?

Sherman did some ugly things, yeah. No one denies that. His mission was, as he phrased it, to "make Georgia howl." And in doing so he took away the Confederacy's ability to meaningfully wage war and broke their will to do it in the first place.

Not to spew a "whataboutism," but you conveniently ignore that the Confederacy practiced scorched earth tactics as well. A lot of the damage to Atlanta stemmed from fleeing confederates setting fire to materiel upon their departure, and Joe Wheeler's cavalry force was infamous for their pillage of their own populace in Georgia. Jubal Early, in his raiding through the north, extorted towns for money and material, and if they did not meet his demands, had those towns eradicated.

That is not what that order did unless you're playing extremely fast and loose with the language of that order. 

Butler was an petty idiot to put something like that on paper, and it was universally reviled and eventually contributed to his removal, but it wasn't meant to authorize rape. What it was meant to do is spell out "if these ladies aren't behaving like proper ladies, don't treat them like proper ladies."

You’re correct about Butler. This article gives more insight into his view of rape, particularly in war:

https://archive.nytimes.com/opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/25/rape-and-justice-in-the-civil-war/

[TitanTiger 20,499]

On 6/5/2023 at 3:15 PM, TexasTiger said:

I think when terms get broadened and overused they tend to lose their punch. Frankly, I think that’s been the case with the term “white supremacy” which has the unfortunate effect of desensitizing many folks to the practice itself. But can we all agree that in 2023 for Alabama to still be observing Jefferson Davis Day is way past it’s expiration date and deeply rooted in white Supremacy? Why can’t the state let this go?

https://www.al.com/news/2022/02/how-a-confederate-daughter-rewrote-alabama-history-for-white-supremacy.html

There's no reason to be celebrating figures from the side that rebelled against and attacked our country, primarily for the purpose of preserving slavery, and quite justly lost.  The states that left for the CSA have been reincorporated into the United States of America and that's the country we should care about.

That doesn't mean we "forget our history" but it does affect *how* we choose to remember it.  Believe me, no one in Germany has forgotten Hitler, the Nazi Party, the Third Reich, the SS, Brownshirts and Gestapo.  But neither do they erect statues of Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler, and Rommel.  Flying a Nazi flag with a swastika is not seen as "heritage, not hate."  Nazi history is well known and not hidden.  But it's in museums, textbooks, WWII and Holocaust memorials.  That is how you don't forget your history.  Statues, memorials and holidays are for honoring people and events that are worthy of being honored or celebrated.

And this is how Confederate history should be largely treated.  It's a shameful period in American history and the CSA was a country set up for mostly wrong and terrible reasons and we should learn from the errors of that time.  But there's no reason to be honoring it or any of its figures.