Removal of historic monuments

[HandOverFist]

With the current call for removal of Southern monuments/statues deemed offensive, I hear today "they" are pushing to eradicate anything affiliated with Christopher Columbus as well. Where does this all end? Lets all bury our heads in the sand and rewrite history to suit everyone's whim.

Hell, if "they" are really serious all of us should pack our bags and vacate leaving it back in the native's hands. That would at least show some semblance of moral integrity.

[Ed Fernandez]

I'm waiting for NYC to remove FDR's name from history. After all he was racist in his dealings with Japanese citizens during the war.
Remember the saying " Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it".
I could sit here all night typing about the things going on in this country but I have a headache already.

[House of Darts]

You can't stop graffiti but somehow this is easy and people can get behind it? FCFS!

[Lew Silverman]

Funny how your historical perspective changes in relation to which end of the gun barrel your ancestors were facing.

[Ed Fernandez]

Originally Posted by Lew Silverman

Funny how your historical perspective changes in relation to which end of the gun barrel your ancestors were facing.

Note the key word "ancestors". That was a few generations ago.These monuments are a reminder of our history. Before all the feel good BS these monuments were of no concern to the general public. How far do you want to take this back.
My ancestors were from Spain. Remember Cuba being appropriated by the US in 1898? It's done and buried. You can go on and on with this till the beginnings of civilization. Time moves on, history moves on, but we should never forget these events but try to learn from them.
What's happening here is a group of people trying to jump back into the past to open old wounds to deflect the fact that they feel entitled to be given special advantages without putting in the effort to gain them on a level basis. Never have people given the
OPPERTUNITY to get ahead in life than there has in this country in the pasty 30 years or so. Some chose to do so and some opted to take the handouts.

[Lew Silverman]

"Remember the saying "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it"?"

Unless I've forgotten my junior-high social studies lessons, the Spanish-American War started because of the desire of the Cuban (and Filipino) people to gain their independence from an overbearing and cruel Spanish government. (After all, we fought a war for OUR independence a little over a hundred years earlier). That, and the not so small matter of the sabotage and sinking of a US battleship in Havana harbor. I don't need a statue to "Remember the Maine", do I? (And if I did, there's one at Arlington Cemetery, along with memorials to Americans from all of our conflicts)

But that's not what we're really talking about here, is it? It's not really about what's happening with the statues after all -

"What's happening here is a group of people trying to jump back into the past to open old wounds to deflect the fact that they feel entitled to be given special advantages without putting in the effort to gain them on a level basis. Never have people given the
OPPORTUNITY to get ahead in life than there has in this country in the past 30 years or so. Some chose to do so and some opted to take the handouts."

So the recent concern about the statuary and memorials is just a smokescreen for some sinister plot? The "fact" that the majority of these statues were dedicated well after the Civil War ended, coincidentally at or around the same time that "Jim Crow" laws were being passed to disenfranchise a part of our citizenry, isn't a valid reason for us to discuss their relocation? No one is saying that we should forget or ignore our shared history, quite the opposite. I don't think anyone wants to forget that it took us almost 100 years after that war and TWO Acts of Congress to guarantee Equal Rights "under law" to ALL Americans. I know I don't want to forget. And I don't need a statue to help me remember.

[Ed Fernandez]

Originally Posted by Lew Silverman

"Remember the saying "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it"?"

Unless I've forgotten my junior-high social studies lessons, the Spanish-American War started because of the desire of the Cuban (and Filipino) people to gain their independence from an overbearing and cruel Spanish government. (After all, we fought a war for OUR independence a little over a hundred years earlier). That, and the not so small matter of the sabotage and sinking of a US battleship in Havana harbor. I don't need a statue to "Remember the Maine", do I? (And if I did, there's one at Arlington Cemetery, along with memorials to Americans from all of our conflicts)

But that's not what we're really talking about here, is it? It's not really about what's happening with the statues after all -

"What's happening here is a group of people trying to jump back into the past to open old wounds to deflect the fact that they feel entitled to be given special advantages without putting in the effort to gain them on a level basis. Never have people given the
OPPORTUNITY to get ahead in life than there has in this country in the past 30 years or so. Some chose to do so and some opted to take the handouts."

So the recent concern about the statuary and memorials is just a smokescreen for some sinister plot? The "fact" that the majority of these statues were dedicated well after the Civil War ended, coincidentally at or around the same time that "Jim Crow" laws were being passed to disenfranchise a part of our citizenry, isn't a valid reason for us to discuss their relocation? No one is saying that we should forget or ignore our shared history, quite the opposite. I don't think anyone wants to forget that it took us almost 100 years after that war and TWO Acts of Congress to guarantee Equal Rights "under law" to ALL Americans. I know I don't want to forget. And I don't need a statue to help me remember.

First, they want the statues DESTROYED (they did a good job on a few), not relocated.
Second, The vocal majority don't want a conversation about relocation.
Third, all the support they get comes from liberals who vote and support the party that
were mostly responsible for the Jim Crow era. The Civil RightsAct was fought tooth and nails by southern dixiecrats (but we all know that, old news, let's move on) and the party saw votes in giving blacks (and other minorities) entitlements. They do it to this day. I have no problem giving people a hand up, not a hand out for no return in their ability to better themselves. When scam artists like Al sharpton, Jessie Jackson and all the other leeches are given a platform at their conventions and gatherings it's no wonder they drove moderate democrats away.
I could type all night giving examples where modern day liberalism has done very little to uplift the plight of minorities in this country.
Liberalism is a mental disorder.

[Buick6]

It's almost impossible to view history by what we know today. You have to view it in the context of what the laws and beliefs were then. The War Between the States wasn't only fought about slavery. But a lot of people today still think that slavery was the only issue. The US Supreme Court case of Dred Scott upheld slavery several years before the war. And years later, the US Supreme Court case of Plessy Vs. Ferguson upheld separate but equal laws, which were what most Jim Crow laws were about (separate bathrooms, drinking fountains, etc.) But the statues and monuments have nothing to do with any of that. They were erected to honor leaders of men who answered the call of duty to defend their states against an invading army from the north. They were erected as a way for southerners to regain some pride after a devastating defeat. Those statues aren't about racism or white supremacy, but the way the liberal mind works they make that leap. I'd bet those same people believe Sherman's March to the Sea was honorable and humane.

[HandOverFist]

I would have to agree with the above statement. The majority of people nowadays really have no clue about the Civil War other than what Hollywood portrays.

[Lew Silverman]

Originally Posted by Buick6

It's almost impossible to view history by what we know today. You have to view it in the context of what the laws and beliefs were then. The War Between the States wasn't only fought about slavery. But a lot of people today still think that slavery was the only issue. The US Supreme Court case of Dred Scott upheld slavery several years before the war. And years later, the US Supreme Court case of Plessy Vs. Ferguson upheld separate but equal laws, which were what most Jim Crow laws were about (separate bathrooms, drinking fountains, etc.) But the statues and monuments have nothing to do with any of that. They were erected to honor leaders of men who answered the call of duty to defend their states against an invading army from the north. They were erected as a way for southerners to regain some pride after a devastating defeat. Those statues aren't about racism or white supremacy, but the way the liberal mind works they make that leap. I'd bet those same people believe Sherman's March to the Sea was honorable and humane.

Your first two sentences make a great deal of sense, which is why it's hard for some people to understand how the past has helped to shape our present.

Slavery not "THE" cause of the war? Not if you believe most contemporaneous writers of the period, including Alexander Stephens, when he authored the "Cornerstone Speech", which most certainly stated that slavery, and it's spreading west, was a very "BIG" part of the call for secession. Chattel slavery was a very large part of the economy down south, after all. And I suppose that President Lincoln's rational to pursue hostilities with the states who seceded after they attacked Fort Sumter was more of an effort to keep the Union in one piece, then to end slavery, at least initially. The "Emancipation Proclamation" came later, and only affected those chattel slaves in the areas not under Union control.

But if, as you say, the statuary and other monuments were erected to help southerners regain some pride after a devastating defeat, why did it take, in some cases, 40 years to emplace them? And why the somewhat coincidental passage of the "Jim Crow" laws to subjugate the part of the southern population that earned the rights of citizenship at the conclusion of that conflict. "Separate", but hardly "equal", and it took 58 years for the SCOTUS to finally get it right.

I suppose it would be an interesting research project to find out what was said, back then, about that period right after the war. Had President Lincoln not been assassinated and had he been able to bring about the ideals he so eloquently stated in his 2nd Inaugural Address -

"With Malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds."

Maybe we wouldn't be fixated on statues right now.