This is funny because most people have no clue of their history. I mean the chat here shows it vibrantly in that everyone says Abe was good and his statues shouldnt be removed. Contrary to the mass propaganda which tries to portray the civil war as a war for black people which if you read history is comical. Its these same people that claim Jesus was white and preach the good book even if they are illiterate. The civil war was not about black people. It was about land. The Monroe doctrine was not 20 years previous and most senators and such owned slaves. During the civil war the southern usa was owned by 12 families and they owned the land and the people regardless of color. The civil war was a war for land based on the Monroe Doctrine as seen by the jim crowe south after the civil war until MLK. I understand people dont want to remember the horrors of the Klan and the Confederacy and that is why they are toppling statues but I ask if the toppling of statues really changes anything. Does removing a Robert Lee statue make Virginia less racist? In current times we see the same pandering. I mean Harris is VP and the media goes nuts for the firsts that she marks... but she doesnt promote democracy or a response to gun violence or anything to common people. Its the same pandering and until the people really change the system it will continue.
@MarmeeMarch guess some havent heard of the Confederacy or the Daughters of Confederacy (reason for the statues) or Yellow Dog Dems or Nixons southern strategy or Regans drug plans and education policy ... even 14 year old socialist knows of such...
@che154 There is a lot of revisionism in reports nowadays, but speaking strictly about that leading up to the Civil War (the point I was originally addressing) I believe you said
Contrary to the mass propaganda which tries to portray the civil war as a war for black people which if you read history is comical.
While it wasn’t for black people, slavery and the prospect of Lincoln’s abolition of the same was what prompted the secession of Southern states, the establishment of the Confederacy and ultimately factored into the war. As for slaves vs. indentured servants, the latter had limits on their time of servitude—slaves did not.
Moreover, even free blacks could legally be captured and sold because they no legal rights, and it happened more often than you might think, once slavecatchers were given the right to seek fugitive slaves in Northern states.
@MushroomFaerie Books being burned because they depict ideas others don't want spread among their community based on personal preferences is one thing. Removing memorials commemorating a defeated and all-time low point in this nation is another.
Names of the Holocaust lost are etched into the stones along some walkways and porch steps in Germany; that's a tribute. What wouldn't work and what the US would outright condemn would be a 12-foot bronze statue of Hitler in front of the local government building.
No one's rewriting history - that facts of the age are undisputed. The question is whether to celebrate those who tried to pry apart this nation for the luxury of building it on others' backs or whether to celebrate all the achievements that have followed that time.
Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right. George Orwell, 1984
William Wiburforce, a British politician, philanthropist and a leader of the movement to abolish the slave trade. Okay, I cheated, but now we all get to know.
I think if the sum of a person's legacy outweighs a single factor, then a memorial to that person is appropriate. No one's erasing or rewriting history. We're making a conscious decision not to celebrate the darkest chapters of it. These are people and topics for study and commemoration, not for tourist attractions or elevated status within a nation they fought to divide. Imagine that Germany undertook a concerted effort to remove dozens of Nazi statues from public places. Would we stand in the way?
I don't agree that allowing 19-year-old students to lead the charge against historical inequity is a sound one, but the intentions are good. At the very least, it's opened a discussion about what we collectively want our legacy to be.
no statue should be taken down ,, it is your history good or bad if you get rid of it then people forget how they got to where life is so much better now than before,,,,
@oldercanuck1 I disagree. Statues are commemorative, the can memorialize. They are not tools of history. We have books, schools, museums and higher degrees for what is the worthy pursuit of sorting through man's family story, but a statue is simply art commemorating a moment in time.
It's probably why there's no statue park for serial killers in history or depictions of us annihilating Nagasaki. What we choose to memorialize says much about society but the statues will never tell much history.
@MarmeeMarch lol shows how much reason or reality is in the decisions. lol Abe didnt own slaves and the person in the statue above was a strong abolitionist which is commendable and that statue shouldnt be removed because it was people like him that got whatever glimmer of hope of peaceful race relations and it builds on that. Who thinks this administration is still alive?