Removing Confederate Monuments and Renaming Confederate-Named Military Bases

[repoman]

So, you are saying I shouldn't ask for your opinion because what I will find inside that box is racist?

Is that what you are trying to communicate?

Come on. Give a real answer!

What is your opinion on the actual subject at hand, people removing racist statues following decades of inaction?

I am a fan of Enoch Powell, so I think you can guess my opinion.

 

[Trausti]

Matthias Baldwin

 

[Jarhyn]

So, you are saying I shouldn't ask for your opinion because what I will find inside that box is racist?

Is that what you are trying to communicate?

Come on. Give a real answer!

What is your opinion on the actual subject at hand, people removing racist statues following decades of inaction?

I am a fan of Enoch Powell, so I think you can guess my opinion.

Nope. You can say it yourself, clearly and openly.

 

[bilby]

Put the statues into museums as a part of human history, both good and bad.

same museums as the Benedict Arnold statues?

It's history. To deny that the bad happened is a mistake. History is to acknowledge that it happened, to understand it rather than to glorify it or admire it.

Statues are iconography, not history. History doesn't depend on statues; If it did, nobody would know who the fuck this "Hitler" character is, because there seem to be no statues of him anywhere.

 

[bilby]

Fort Signor Lifeway.

FIFY

Fort McO'Henry

Bragg could be Fort Kilroy. Their motto: We Were There.

Wot no Bragg?

 

[DBT]

It's history. To deny that the bad happened is a mistake. History is to acknowledge that it happened, to understand it rather than to glorify it or admire it.

Statues are iconography, not history. History doesn't depend on statues; If it did, nobody would know who the fuck this "Hitler" character is, because there seem to be no statues of him anywhere.

Is History not composed of a wide range elements, architecture, art, literature, thought, language religion, belief...?

 

[laughing dog]

It's history. To deny that the bad happened is a mistake. History is to acknowledge that it happened, to understand it rather than to glorify it or admire it.

Statues are iconography, not history. History doesn't depend on statues; If it did, nobody would know who the fuck this "Hitler" character is, because there seem to be no statues of him anywhere.

Is History not composed of a wide range elements, architecture, art, literature, thought, language religion, belief...?

Those statutes were not put up for people to remember history. If they were, they'd have "traitor to the USA" inscribed somewhere. But they don't. They were put up to remember the good ole days of the South where the darkies knew their place (in chains).

 

[Harry Bosch]

It's history. To deny that the bad happened is a mistake. History is to acknowledge that it happened, to understand it rather than to glorify it or admire it.

Statues are iconography, not history. History doesn't depend on statues; If it did, nobody would know who the fuck this "Hitler" character is, because there seem to be no statues of him anywhere.

This is such a great point. Here's the deal, many of these statutes were strategically placed in areas purposely intended to mock the local people there. Getting rid of these statues dosn't change history! The thought of this is absolutely crazy.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Put the statues into museums as a part of human history, both good and bad.

same museums as the Benedict Arnold statues?

It's history. To deny that the bad happened is a mistake. History is to acknowledge that it happened, to understand it rather than to glorify it or admire it.

Men fought in the wars, statues did not. We can remember the people of the history that happened, without a statue. Arnold has no statues, to my knowledge, but his name is used to identify traitors. No statues to Hitler, but he's an internet metric.
No statues to Charles Ponzi, but his scheme is remembered.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Is History not composed of a wide range elements, architecture, art, literature, thought, language religion, belief...?

Those statutes were not put up for people to remember history. If they were, they'd have "traitor to the USA" inscribed somewhere. But they don't. They were put up to remember the good ole days of the South where the darkies knew their place (in chains).

Yeah, Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia etc. joined the Confederacy after the war.

 

[southernhybrid]

It's history. To deny that the bad happened is a mistake. History is to acknowledge that it happened, to understand it rather than to glorify it or admire it.

Statues are iconography, not history. History doesn't depend on statues; If it did, nobody would know who the fuck this "Hitler" character is, because there seem to be no statues of him anywhere.

This is such a great point. Here's the deal, many of these statutes were strategically placed in areas purposely intended to mock the local people there. Getting rid of these statues dosn't change history! The thought of this is absolutely crazy.

Exactly right. I 've read that they were mostly put up during the Jim Crow era to insult the local black population. They should all be removed.

I didn't even realize that so many army bases were named after Confederate leaders. That's insane. It's embarrassing. The names need to be changed. They don't even need to be named after anyone. For example Ft. Benning could be called The Army Fort in Columbus, Ga. It's childish and/or ignorant to want to keep these bases names after traitors. Confederate generals were traitors. Why are we glorifying traitors?

Why not just replace all the statues with pretty fountains or bird baths or something nice and calming that all citizens can enjoy viewing? I know that's not going to happen, but that's my preference.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Fort Signor Lifeway.

FIFY

Fort McO'Henry

How about National Park Trump 2020?

<Barf!>

 

[DBT]

It's history. To deny that the bad happened is a mistake. History is to acknowledge that it happened, to understand it rather than to glorify it or admire it.

Statues are iconography, not history. History doesn't depend on statues; If it did, nobody would know who the fuck this "Hitler" character is, because there seem to be no statues of him anywhere.

This is such a great point. Here's the deal, many of these statutes were strategically placed in areas purposely intended to mock the local people there. Getting rid of these statues dosn't change history! The thought of this is absolutely crazy.

But it's gotten to the point where mobs are targeting statues like Churchill, Columbus, etc....where does it stop when fault can be found in every man?

 

[Jarhyn]

This is such a great point. Here's the deal, many of these statutes were strategically placed in areas purposely intended to mock the local people there. Getting rid of these statues dosn't change history! The thought of this is absolutely crazy.

But it's gotten to the point where mobs are targeting statues like Churchill, Columbus, etc....where does it stop when fault can be found in every man?

Columbus? He was one of the people pretty much everyone most wanted to see go. He didn't deserve it and Lee didn't want it OR deserve it.

The rest are CERTAINLY just petty tantrum throwing by the Daughters of the Confederacy. The traitorous statues aren't any more history than if my specific XBox had a sticker I put on it and named it after a fucking racist traitor. They were mass produced garbage, made to make a subtle racist jab against people.

Some statues we have been asking nicely for years to see them put in a museum where they belong, preferably one that contextualizes all their actions. Like Columbus. I was taught in school to revere him, to practically worship him. Great explorer he was not. He was a monster even in his day and age.

A lot of people were. We can remember them, our bloody history, in context. But we shouldn't have statues of the worst monsters in our public square.

 

[DBT]

This is such a great point. Here's the deal, many of these statutes were strategically placed in areas purposely intended to mock the local people there. Getting rid of these statues dosn't change history! The thought of this is absolutely crazy.

But it's gotten to the point where mobs are targeting statues like Churchill, Columbus, etc....where does it stop when fault can be found in every man?

Columbus? He was one of the people pretty much everyone most wanted to see go. He didn't deserve it and Lee didn't want it OR deserve it.

The rest are CERTAINLY just petty tantrum throwing by the Daughters of the Confederacy. The traitorous statues aren't any more history than if my specific XBox had a sticker I put on it and named it after a fucking racist traitor. They were mass produced garbage, made to make a subtle racist jab against people.

Some statues we have been asking nicely for years to see them put in a museum where they belong, preferably one that contextualizes all their actions. Like Columbus. I was taught in school to revere him, to practically worship him. Great explorer he was not. He was a monster even in his day and age.

A lot of people were. We can remember them, our bloody history, in context. But we shouldn't have statues of the worst monsters in our public square.

How much of human history is decent and good? A lot of it is war and conquest. Conquest of North and South America, Australia, colonialism, etc, etc....not to mention the ancient world.

 

[bilby]

This is such a great point. Here's the deal, many of these statutes were strategically placed in areas purposely intended to mock the local people there. Getting rid of these statues dosn't change history! The thought of this is absolutely crazy.

But it's gotten to the point where mobs are targeting statues like Churchill, Columbus, etc....where does it stop when fault can be found in every man?

Why should it stop?

Who is sufficiently better than the majority as to justify having a statue at all?

Columbus was a colossal cunt, who deserves exactly zero respect from anybody.

Seriously, you might as well have statues of Hitler as statues of Columbus.

He was a genocidal arsehole and a shithouse navigator to boot.

 

[Arctish]

This is such a great point. Here's the deal, many of these statutes were strategically placed in areas purposely intended to mock the local people there. Getting rid of these statues dosn't change history! The thought of this is absolutely crazy.

But it's gotten to the point where mobs are targeting statues like Churchill, Columbus, etc....where does it stop when fault can be found in every man?

As John Oliver put it, it stops somewhere.

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

 

[DBT]

This is such a great point. Here's the deal, many of these statutes were strategically placed in areas purposely intended to mock the local people there. Getting rid of these statues dosn't change history! The thought of this is absolutely crazy.

But it's gotten to the point where mobs are targeting statues like Churchill, Columbus, etc....where does it stop when fault can be found in every man?

Why should it stop?

Who is sufficiently better than the majority as to justify having a statue at all?

Columbus was a colossal cunt, who deserves exactly zero respect from anybody.

Seriously, you might as well have statues of Hitler as statues of Columbus.

He was a genocidal arsehole and a shithouse navigator to boot.

Columbus was not the best example, however it's still a part of history. Perhaps, as I said, some statues should be relocated to museums.

Consider the huge statue of Alexander in Thessolonika, a killer, a conqueror, yet a part of Macedonian history and culture.

So is everything in that category to be removed from public space?

Where is the line drawn between acceptable and unacceptable when much of our history is nasty and brutish?

 

[laughing dog]

This is such a great point. Here's the deal, many of these statutes were strategically placed in areas purposely intended to mock the local people there. Getting rid of these statues dosn't change history! The thought of this is absolutely crazy.

But it's gotten to the point where mobs are targeting statues like Churchill, Columbus, etc....where does it stop when fault can be found in every man?

Why do you think that once a statue is placed, it must stay there forever?

 

[ZiprHead]

It's history. To deny that the bad happened is a mistake. History is to acknowledge that it happened, to understand it rather than to glorify it or admire it.

Statues are iconography, not history. History doesn't depend on statues; If it did, nobody would know who the fuck this "Hitler" character is, because there seem to be no statues of him anywhere.

This is such a great point. Here's the deal, many of these statutes were strategically placed in areas purposely intended to mock the local people there. Getting rid of these statues dosn't change history! The thought of this is absolutely crazy.

Here is the dedication of the Robert E. Lee statue. The swath of white is the Ku Klux Klan.