Move the statues to a museum environment where the full, fact based history of the war can be dicussed. No problem with that. But to have them on street corners as celebratory pieces, and make no mistake that is exactly what they are, should not happen.
.
Or do like Baltimore is doing, move them to a Confederate graveyard.
One thing I found interesting, which I did not previously know, is that Robert E. Lee himself opposed the erection of confederate monuments after the war.
“I think it wiser,” the retired military leader wrote about a proposed Gettysburg memorial in 1869, “…not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered.”
One thing I found interesting, which I did not previously know, is that Robert E. Lee himself opposed the erection of confederate monuments after the war.
“I think it wiser,” the retired military leader wrote about a proposed Gettysburg memorial in 1869, “…not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered.”
Nope, sorry Kybosh. Without statues then history will be lost to the sands of time. Did you know a guy named Gandhi once lived in India? Well he did. I didn't know that because there is no statue where I live now. Are you saying you don't want people to remember Gandhi?
These are monuments that are highly deserving of existing. These statues are the only way that some people will remember that their forefathers fought against their own country because owning other human beings was really important. Remember the Alamo. #NeverForget
Last edited by ResAlien; 08-16-2017 at 08:51 AM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ResAlien For This Useful Post:
I was in Savanah once and at a restaurant built in the 1800's. They uncovered a confederate war map drawn on a wall during a renovation. They preserved it and have it in a climate controlled frame. That's the kind of stuff that would be sad to see go. That's actual history and important. People don't have a problem with that sort of stuff.
Yeah, moving the statues to museums or battlefield memorials seems the best approach. That would satisfy the people who regard them as important military leaders worth recognizing, while taking the wind out of the sails of the bigots.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Did Lee start a war to separate The US from the states? Was Lee an active proponeant of slavery? It's unclear, but in general he was a fighting out of nationalism rather than pro slavery. He was definitely racist and thoughts blacks were unintelligent though he also started schools for blacks. He also was in favour of sending them all back to Africa. Though Lee actually would likely be against statues being put up of him celebrating southern independence given his role during the reconstruction.
Isn't this a rewriting of history? The civil war was about slaves and he was the leader of the side that wanted to keep them. He was also a cruel slave owner. Seems crystal clear that he was a proponent of slavery.
How many statues of communism have tumbled all over the world, how about Nazi symbols and statues?
Oddly enough Nazi's and communists are not gone from our history books, nobody cries about missing out on their heritage because those statues and symbols are gone.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
There's a Lenin Statue in Seattle, I'm sure there's more around lots of places, it's just that most people don't care. Just like the poster who thought there was no way there'd be a Washington statue in all of the UK, there's one in Traflagar square in London.
There's a Lenin Statue in Seattle, I'm sure there's more around lots of places, it's just that most people don't care. Just like the poster who thought there was no way there'd be a Washington statue in all of the UK, there's one in Traflagar square in London.
But that's the thing, there are very few of these examples. In former confederate states there are numerous statues and a sense of pride associated with what they stood for which is not a good thing. If there was a statue of hitler in Germany today, how much opposition do you think there would be to taking it down?
If we're just listing random statues around the world, there is a golden statue of Bruce Lee in Mostar, Bosnia-Hercegovina (at least there used to be, they may have moved it because of the awesomeness).
There's a Lenin Statue in Seattle, I'm sure there's more around lots of places, it's just that most people don't care. Just like the poster who thought there was no way there'd be a Washington statue in all of the UK, there's one in Traflagar square in London.
The Lenin Statue is on private property and it's for sale. 250K and you can do whatever you want with it.
Statues on public property, sure the government can remove them. On private property is a more slippery slope, I'm not sure what the laws are.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
But that's the thing, there are very few of these examples. In former confederate states there are numerous statues and a sense of pride associated with what they stood for which is not a good thing. If there was a statue of hitler in Germany today, how much opposition do you think there would be to taking it down?
There are lots, that's true. And as other people have correctly pointed out many of them were commissioned in the 1925-1930 perios which was the rebirth of the modern Klan so a decent case can be made that they have both little historical significance and pretty disgusting racist intent.
But the Hitler comparison is weak because Robert E Lee wasn't Hitler. I'd say a better comparison, which someone else pointed out, is Rommel. There's also probably no Rommel statues in Germany but it's less of a slam dunk case. In people's fervor to attack everything Confederacy related in the coming weeks I'd expect some attacks on legitimate monuments to the soldiers who died, many of whom were conscripted to fight even though they didn't own slaves. Those sites should be protected, as the memorials and monuments to regular German soldiers in WW2 are.
The Following User Says Thank You to DiracSpike For This Useful Post:
Also VICE released this chilling video of the rally.
One of the guys featured is now crying and terrified. Now saying that they went out of their way to be non-violent when he says in that Vice video "we’re not nonviolent, we’ll ####ing kill these people if we have to."
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sureLoss For This Useful Post:
But that's the thing, there are very few of these examples. In former confederate states there are numerous statues and a sense of pride associated with what they stood for which is not a good thing.
A great many Southerners do not believe those statues stand for slavery. They believe those statues stand for Southern pride, especially the pride in how valiantly they fought a terrible war against a more powerful enemy.
They're deluded that the generals weren't fighting to maintain slavery. But that delusion is genuine.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
One of the guys featured is now crying and terrified. Now saying that they went out of their way to be non-violent when he says in that Vice video "we’re not nonviolent, we’ll ####ing kill these people if we have to."
Anyone that watched the VICE mini-documentary NEEDS to see this video.
There are lots, that's true. And as other people have correctly pointed out many of them were commissioned in the 1925-1930 perios which was the rebirth of the modern Klan so a decent case can be made that they have both little historical significance and pretty disgusting racist intent.
But the Hitler comparison is weak because Robert E Lee wasn't Hitler. I'd say a better comparison, which someone else pointed out, is Rommel. There's also probably no Rommel statues in Germany but it's less of a slam dunk case. In people's fervor to attack everything Confederacy related in the coming weeks I'd expect some attacks on legitimate monuments to the soldiers who died, many of whom were conscripted to fight even though they didn't own slaves. Those sites should be protected, as the memorials and monuments to regular German soldiers in WW2 are.
No Robert E Lee was not hitler, I think a better example to stick with the German theme would be Heinrich Himmler, would you argue for a statue of him to be kept? Any memorial site for troops in Germany are very clear in their message that they served their country valiantly, but that the what they were fighting for was wrong.
A great many Southerners do not believe those statues stand for slavery. They believe those statues stand for Southern pride, especially the pride in how valiantly they fought a terrible war against a more powerful enemy.
They're deluded that the generals weren't fighting to maintain slavery. But that delusion is genuine.
And delusions can be addressed and erased if there's a high enough priority placed on doing so.
Germany had Nazism burned out of its soul, deliberately, by German policy makers and civil society. They confronted their immediate past and, for the most part, have accepted the shame, guilt, and solemnity of that era.
This is an act in a similar vein and an act that's 150 years overdue. Imagine if the South was forced to accept that slavery was bad from decades long policies of reconciliation and acceptance like in Germany where we would be today?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Tinordi For This Useful Post:
A great many Southerners do not believe those statues stand for slavery. They believe those statues stand for Southern pride, especially the pride in how valiantly they fought a terrible war against a more powerful enemy.
They're deluded that the generals weren't fighting to maintain slavery. But that delusion is genuine.
And? Allowing this dillusion to continue is not helping them in any way. The confederacy stood for maintaining slavery, plain and simple. This is a situation where doing the right thing will offend and upset some people. Those people will be ok without their statues in the long run, it might even help it sink in that what they were representing was bad.
The Following User Says Thank You to iggy_oi For This Useful Post:
