Do we remove all of this from history books too?

 

I think the history classes I had as a kid and in college nailed the Civil War pretty well.

 

There is a difference between remembering the war, why it happened, its terrible consequences, etc., and enshrining the myth of an heroic Confederacy.

 

There is a difference between remembering the war, why it happened, and it's terrible consequences and enshrining the myth of an heroic Confederacy.

 

But is that what the statues purposes are? I've always viewed statues of things as signs of remembrance, not of memorializing. :idunno:

I'm curious.

 

For those that are adamant that the statues need to come down, is the removal of statues limited just to Confederate statues or does it carry over to other areas as well?

 

Should those that were say outspoken against homosexuality have any monuments or statues removed?

 

In the case of Confederate monuments, these people are being honored precisely for their participation in a war against the United States meant to preserve a system of racial hierarchy. Robert E Lee was by all accounts a fine military officer and battlefield tactician, but he would not be remembered if he hadn't led a rebellion against the U.S. government to preserve slavery.

 

That people went to such lengths to honor the losers of this rebellion, and not those whose heroism was worthy of reverence - the black soldiers who fought for the United States or the slaves who successfully rebelled - is exactly why these monuments are finally controversial.

 

I'm sure you could find something unsavory about any human in history, including those we remember - from Washington to King to whomever - but these men aren't being recognized for their worst aspects, but for the good they did, flawed as they may be. That's where the "where will it stop" argument runs out of pavement.

But is that what the statues purposes are? I've always viewed statues of things as signs of remembrance, not of memorializing. :idunno:

 

Some do the job better than others. They're definitely not all the same in that regard. The one formerly on Third Street in Louisville is a good example of how it's not really on the nose, but it always made me uneasy.

 

The figures on the monuments are posed heroically, eternally prepared for battle. The figure atop the monument stares off wistfully. An editorial writer at the time it was erected called it a statuary embodiment of the Lost Cause.

 

Yet the actual language on it is simply one of remembrance of literally the "rank and file soldiers" of Kentucky.

 

Maybe the solution to some of them is on-site education. We can leave them standing as a memorial to American citizens who, misguided as they were, followed leaders to their last end. A plaque explaining the monument and why, despite the Confederacy's rotten origins, we leave it standing.

 

I'm probably out on a limb there, and those further left than I am would probably reject it, but I think it gets us closer to where we ought to be on this.

Do we remove all of this from history books too?

 

Frankly, the fact that people still believe the myths of the noble Confederacy is a reflection of how poorly educated our country is about its own history. There should absolutely be more historical education.

Frankly, the fact that people still believe the myths of the noble Confederacy is a reflection of how poorly educated our country is about its own history. There should absolutely be more historical education.

 

I was 22 years old before I'd ever heard of the Cornerstone Speech. Talk about a complete failure of education. Impossible to have any real discussion of the Confederacy without it.

I'm curious.

 

For those that are adamant that the statues need to come down, is the removal of statues limited just to Confederate statues or does it carry over to other areas as well?

 

Should those that were say outspoken against homosexuality have any monuments or statues removed?

 

Off the top of my head I'm not sure who specifically you might be referring to regarding anti attitudes regarding homosexuality, but while I do have things from the past regarding the topic that rubs me the wrong way with regard to how historically gay people have been treated, I also realize that in the past people just didn't have much if any reason to have a clearer awareness, and were mostly at the mercy of attitudes they were raised with, both in society and from religion.

 

I get where people years ago had less reason to be aware, and more reason to come to a misunderstanding regarding the topic.

 

In many respects peoples' lack of understanding wasn't their own fault exactly, however today with most having been exposed to discussions that help further them along in their understanding, if they remain so adamantly anti-gay, then their deeply-rooted feelings, though it's their own reality, are much more harder for me to digest, accept, and excuse.

 

With that said, even if I give a pass to folks years ago who didn't quite understand, I won't give a pass to those who felt that it was fine to violently attack gays just to get their kicks.

 

Depending on who you might be referring to, if I were asked my thoughts regarding them, I'd have to consider the time, and what their whole body of work represented.

So are we good with the Jefferson Davis monument in Fairview?

So are we good with the Jefferson Davis monument in Fairview?

 

I'm not willing to be nearly as indulgent of memorials to those political leaders as I am of those remembering soldiers.

I used to live/work in Atlanta. I remember going to Stone Mountain one night with a group of neighbors for a picnic and the laser show. I thought it was a lot of fun.

 

Later that year as I helped organize the annual work picnic – I suggested to have it at Stone Mountain. I’ll never forget the looks of disgust by my black co-workers. In that single moment I was educated about why these monuments and statues should come down. To this day, I’m still embarrassed for my ignorance.

 

We went to Stone Mountain once, there were as many black visitors as white visitors they day we went.

You are correct both were traitors. The difference is America won Independence, CSA did not. Statues in Great Britain of American soldiers of the Revolutionary War would be the equivalent of CSA statues in America.

 

Now my take is that it is strictly a local decision if they want to put them up and keep them up, again that is a local decision by politicians/taxpayers. If they decide to take them down, the same. I honor their decision, I may not respect it, but I honor it.

You mean like this?

 

 

George Washington in Trafalgar Square in London.

Was he only doing it for votes or did he genuinely care? The thing is no one knows but him. I dont see how hatred can be changed that much, especially in the time he was in.

 

The question of how deeply racist Byrd ever was in his KKK days is debatable. In his day when he was starting out, many politicians starting out in local elections would join local Klan chapters as a way to get votes. The same has also been written about George Wallace, who used racism to pander for votes in Alabama.

 

If anything, denouncing their racist pasts when those two did would be more likely to cost them votes in WVa and Alabama than garner more votes.

It seems a lot is similar to french revolution.

 

In what way?

But is that what the statues purposes are? I've always viewed statues of things as signs of remembrance, not of memorializing. :idunno:

 

Depends upon why it was built, where it is located, what does it say.

 

If it's on a battlefield, leave it alone. Birthplace? Same attitude.

 

Cemetery? It's put there to remember the dead.

 

But a statue of Lee in Charlottesville is out of place IMO.

 

To be honest, a lot of these were built as the generation of Rebels died and the saga of "the Lost Cause" reinterpreted history. It's kind of like the uproar over removing the Confederate flag from the South Carolina Capital. Few realized it was first hoisted in the 1950's when segregation battles began. It wasn't about heritage but Segregation.

You mean like this?

 

 

George Washington in Trafalgar Square in London.

 

Exactly, their issue. If their local govt. is good with it fine, doesn't necessarily mean all of ours or any should be. There's more in Great Britain and I have seen this one personally, so I knew. It is a local choice.

 

My biases either way shouldn't force any government to place or move monuments. In my local area, I am not sure this would not sway my vote either way. My preference would be not to honor them in public displays.