With all the garbage going on about removing statues and memorials I decided to follow Rogue One's advice and start a new thread.

I'm choking on my bile saying this but Donald Trump was right this morning. In most cases leave them alone and let the locals decide. Where they are to be removed it certainly wouldn't hurt to move them to a Civil War Memorial or Museum representing both sides. THAT'S HISTORY. Utilize them as an educational tool for future generations. In our cross country travels we have often stopped at Civil War battlefields and monuments representing either side with our children. We have spent many hours discussing what we've seen and the history behind those sights.

Those who threaten or engage in vandalism to try to remove them should be handled according to the law. They have no right to dictate to others whether or not those things should stand any more than the Holocaust deniers have a right to force the removal of anything related to the Holocaust. They certainly have no legal right to destroy or otherwise vandalize them. Trying to remove any sign that an opposition existed is totally wrong.

Disclaimer: I admit I didn't have descendants who were slaves so I don't have generations of family hurt and resentment. The closest I get is my mother who escaped from the Spanish Civil War in a "Sound of Music" style escape as a child. My grandfather was targeted by Franco's side. That doesn't mean we deny that Franco was an important part of Spanish history and our family history.

What are your suggestions?

It is clearly a divisive topic as there are passions that run strong on both sides. And given the polarization that exists today, it seems many folks on either side really don't understand (or are at all sympathetic to) the opposing view. That kinda puts the local/state governments between the hydrant and the dog. I disagree that the easy answer is to say let the locals decide, because that does not fix the problem, as one side will remain totally pi$$ed off. I think the most logical solution is a compromise that neither side will love or hate: Instead of destroying or removing them altogether, simply move them off government owned property. Donate them to civil war museums or private historical societies. There are plenty of them around in the states where the statues sit now. The historical figures those statues represent would remain intact and can be easily seen by those that appreciate them, it's not right in the face of those that find them offensive, and it takes the local governments out of the middle of a political poop storm.

And I agree that desecration of those statues is a crime no matter where it is displayed.

Why We Should Keep The Confederate Monuments Right Where They Are
Tearing down Confederate statues, or any monuments from our history, will not change the past. But it will make for a poorer, less enlightened future.

Nice read. It makes a lot of sense.

Its hard to believe this is happening in this day and age. It's 2017 ffs. None of this bother anyone for years not even those who went thru slavery, and the civil war. people just learned how to move forward.
They used all this to learn and make them self a better person.
History cannot be erase or changed.
Now all of the sudden it has become one of the biggest issues on this country. Sad!

I feel like most of this could of being avoided if trump would just condemn the extremist(nazis,kkk,ect) 3ven if he wouldof taken s*** from part of his base but it would calm this down some. now he has to figure out a way to begin uniting this country before it gets worse. He does represent the entire nation whether people support him or hate him after all.

Hopefully all this calms down and everyone moves forward.

Removing "offensive" monuments solves nothing and benefits no one, other than the offended. How does that saying go about learning from the past in order to prevent it from happening again?

It stands as a memorial on behalf of the victims, not as a recognition the Nazis were heroes. The minority that want the statues taken down here are using a narrow argument that they recognize the Confederate leaders as heroes and the statues can serve no other useful purpose.

Personally, I see the statues as you do. They're opportunities. There's a lot of learning about the past that can be accomplished in the future by letting them stand in the present.

I like that Rogue shared Auschwitz as it actually a shows better, more historically accurate type of memorial (that teaches history without spin) than positively celebrating Confederate generals in statues built during the Jim Crow era. If you'll notice Auschwitz has no Nazi flags or Adolf Hitler statues on display there. Let that sink in for a moment. Both Nazi concentration camps and the American Civil war are important chapters (dark, bloody ones) in history and should never be forgotten. I don't think relocating statues of Confederate generals will make people suddenly forget the civil war. Really pathetic if it does. I recognize there are many that revere those generals, so I agree the statues should not be destroyed. However, since it's rather obvious that not all voters revere those statues, why not simply move them to a more appropriate place where they can be appreciated by those want to see them? It's simple common sense, but that appears to take a back seat when political passions get added to the equation.

I keep seeing these meme's pop up about MLK Jr. Being against gay marriage and that we should bring his monuments down as well. I wonder, if the argument could be made that since racism is ultimately discrimination, the BLM, ANTIFA, Alt-Left, etc. have to acknowledge the correlation between MLK and say Robert E Lee. In that MLK, if he was against gay marriage, was discriminating against a minority and thus his monuments should be removed under the BLM, ANTIFA, Alt-Left etc movements agenda to eliminate discrimination.

I've read articles from both sides and even read Mrs MLK Jr's notes on the subject. Neither side has compelling evidence to support their claims he would have been either for it or against it. All is speculative as MLK never openly supported or condemned the issue. The one quote I keep thinking about is his response to a question a gay teen asked MLK in that MLK kept calling the teen's homosexuality tendencies a "Habit".

It is interesting to note that General Robert E. Lee did not want any monuments or statues to him or the cause:

The first link is a note he sent to somebody wanting a statue of him (I believe):

http://leefamilyarchive.org/papers/lett ... /v076.html

His words: "my conviction is, that however grateful it would be to the feelings of the South, the attempt in the present condition of the Country, would have the effect of retarding, instead of accelerating its accomplishment; & of continuing, if not adding to, the difficulties under which the Southern people labour."

The second is a note he sent declining the invitation to visit Gettysburg - the intention of which was to establish some memorial statues:
http://www2.vcdh.virginia.edu/saxon/ser ... .09.03.xml

His words: "I think it wiser, moreover, 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."

Z

Not sure why this upsets people as much as it does.

These people were traitors and they fought against their own people in order to continue slavery.

If local communities want their statues down, who am I to say yes or no? I understand making points for or against but showing up from all over the country (and even outside the US) and protesting against something the local population wants is beyond unreasonable.

Bubba1 wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 17, 2017 2:21 pm

I disagree that the easy answer is to say let the locals decide, because that does not fix the problem, as one side will remain totally pi$$ed off.

This begs the question, can one side be correct and the other side wrong?
The idea of meeting in the middle isn't a bad one but usually applies when the right answer is somewhere in the middle. If 4+6 is 10 should we pander to those that think it's 8 and meet in the middle?

Also are the cities that want the statues removed purposefully destroying them out of spite or are they looking to just remove them from public land and allow them to be donated to whom ever?

mixeds14 wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:41 pm

1) Its hard to believe this is happening in this day and age. It's 2017 ffs. None of this bother anyone for years not even those who went thru slavery, and the civil war. people just learned how to move forward....

2) I feel like most of this could of being avoided if trump would just condemn the extremist

1) Well you could say the same thing for literally any progress ever made.
- You know the country never had an issue with slavery and now the North wants to push back
- They were happy to be free, now they want to vote!
- Generations went by and people just dealt with being segregated
Now it's about statues, and criminal justice reform.

2) The Charlottesville event that Trump responded to poorly was about the statue going down so I don't think the statue issue started because of Trump, he probably threw some fuel on that fire though.

szh wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 24, 2017 3:24 pm

It is interesting to note that General Robert E. Lee did not want any monuments or statues to him or the cause

It was so interesting to read about that when the statue situation was going on. It's to bad people pretended it's about E. Lee when it's about what he means to people, and what E. Lee has to say doesn't matter.

Rogue One wrote:Political cartoons, a post from the federalist, facebook memes, and forwards from grandma

Where to begin...

Auschwitz isn't a pro-Nazi symbol while the Confederate statues are. If you REALLY care soo much about history then you will be fine when the Robert E. Lee statue is replaced with one of Sergeant William Carney. This way we don't somehow forget about the Civil War.

The history defense is echoed in John Davidson's Federalist article followed by the title "The Real Reason The Left Wants To Forget The Past" which leads me to believe that Mr. Davidson might have been an impartial source from the get go.

People won't forget about history because we took down a statue. What was the last piece of history you were made aware of because a statue/monument? I can only speak for myself and it's probably never. Is there any evidence that statues keep major historical events from being forgotten?

wa-chiss wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 24, 2017 2:31 pm

I wonder, if the argument could be made that since racism is ultimately discrimination, the BLM, ANTIFA, Alt-Left, etc. have to acknowledge the correlation between MLK and say Robert E Lee. In that MLK, if he was against gay marriage, was discriminating against a minority and thus his monuments should be removed under the BLM, ANTIFA, Alt-Left etc movements agenda to eliminate discrimination.

Racism isn't the same as discrimination. The difference is that racism is based on how you feel, and discrimination is about your actions. Everyone has isms but it's how you express your biases to others that matter.

The "statue slippery slope" argument is an interesting one because a consensus hasn't been reached to where it all ends. "The founding fathers had slaves should we remove their monuments?"

I would love to hear where people fall on this topic.

An interesting and amusing perspective by John Oliver last night. It's worth giving a watch, including haters...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5b_-TZwQ0I[/youtube]