another one bites the dust...

[AlaCowboy]

May 21, 2017 22:32:24 GMT -5 Walter said:

May 21, 2017 22:09:32 GMT -5 frmthegrav said:

      respecting:  these events happened.  period.  in the past, people believed in them enough to construct statues.  ripping them down changes that history.

      statues are statues.  only people give them meaning, negative or positive.  leave them up-- let the people decide. 

Fine. Let us give it some meaning then. It is a legit question.
Do you think a statue of Hitler should be erected at the Reichstag today to "commemorate history"?

Yes or no?

I think that whatever Germany does in Germany to commemorate their history is Germany's business. As for individual states in America, they can recognize their past or ignore it, but their past will still be their past. If they try to artificially bypass it, the past will be remembered incorrectly, and animosity between those remembering wrongly and those ignoring it foolishly will continue.
When I learned American History and Alabama History, I learned the good and the bad. I also heard the stories passed down from my grandparents that heard first-hand accounts of the war and Reconstruction from their parents and grandparents. My great grandfather was born the year before the Yankee Aggression began and his second son (my grandfather) was born in 1883. My great grandfather told him of the battles around Atlanta as the Union army came through. He lived on a farm with his mother and his brothers and sisters just a few miles away from Kennesaw Mountain, where the Confederates made their last stand before falling back to Atlanta itself. He heard the cannons and saw the cavalry of both sides riding through the woods and fields. I myself have walked the fields and the trenches that still exist on that mountain.
So you can take down the statues and rename the streets and parks, but those memories are still in my mind and have been passed down to my children and grandchildren.
The choice is: Do we remember and understand the past and strive to heal the division that still exists, or do we (the government) deny the truth and try to erase the past. The past can be removed from the books and street signs, but not from our memories.

[AlaCowboy]

May 21, 2017 23:19:10 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

May 21, 2017 22:09:32 GMT -5 frmthegrav said:

      respecting:  these events happened.  period.  in the past, people believed in them enough to construct statues.  ripping them down changes that history.

      statues are statues.  only people give them meaning, negative or positive.  leave them up-- let the people decide. 

What about Saddam Hussein, Lenin, and Stalin statues that were pulled down?

Should they be restored, to "respect" the history of Baathists and Soviet communism?

So you approve of ISIS destroying historical sites and statuary in the Middle East because it offended them? They were in power in those areas, so they acted in the same way as the New Orleans coloreds that want to destroy those statues they don't like.

[Deleted]

May 21, 2017 23:34:11 GMT -5 Walter said:

May 21, 2017 23:19:10 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

What about Saddam Hussein, Lenin, and Stalin statues that were pulled down?

Should they be restored, to "respect" the history of Baathists and Soviet communism?

Notwithstanding the "outrage" over taking down symbols commemorating the Jim Crow era, it does raise the point of the self-righteous destruction of historically significant statuary and edifices by a ruling power. Pol Pot destroyed thousand year old Cambodian artifacts because he disliked the messages they conveyed. So this is not a black/white question.
There is an historical component.

       Yes, and Stalin blew up the Christ the Savior Cathedral  (and many other Russian Orthodox churches throughout the USSR) because he couldn't stand looking at it.

        So, the "victors" often tear down the monuments of their adversaries.

        Whether these monuments should be removed is really a moral question, in the final analysis.

         My own view is that the idealization of the Confederacy has been a bad thing for the U.S.-- and especially for black people.  I didn't realize how serious the problem was, even now, until Obama's election in 2008, when the latent racists in the U.S. crawled out of the woodwork.

[Walter]

May 21, 2017 23:49:03 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

May 21, 2017 23:34:11 GMT -5 Walter said:

Notwithstanding the "outrage" over taking down symbols commemorating the Jim Crow era, it does raise the point of the self-righteous destruction of historically significant statuary and edifices by a ruling power. Pol Pot destroyed thousand year old Cambodian artifacts because he disliked the messages they conveyed. So this is not a black/white question.
There is an historical component.

       Yes, and Stalin blew up the Christ the Savior Cathedral  (and many other Russian Orthodox churches throughout the USSR) because he couldn't stand looking at it.

        So, the "victors" often tear down the monuments of their adversaries.

        Whether these monuments should be removed is really a moral question, in the final analysis.

         My own view is that the idealization of the Confederacy has been a bad thing for the U.S.-- and especially for black people.  I didn't realize how serious the problem was, even now, until Obama's election in 2008, when the latent racists in the U.S. crawled out of the woodwork.

The point then becomes the social method of conveying the history.
The Jim Crow era that erected the 4 monuments deserves study. No question about that.
Cowboy tells of the verbal history handed down in his area. That is legit.
So the question becomes HOW is the history is presented. IMO that is where the monuments that were removed come up short because they don't tell an honest history..

[Deleted]

May 22, 2017 0:02:33 GMT -5 Walter said:

May 21, 2017 23:49:03 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

       Yes, and Stalin blew up the Christ the Savior Cathedral  (and many other Russian Orthodox churches throughout the USSR) because he couldn't stand looking at it.

        So, the "victors" often tear down the monuments of their adversaries.

        Whether these monuments should be removed is really a moral question, in the final analysis.

         My own view is that the idealization of the Confederacy has been a bad thing for the U.S.-- and especially for black people.  I didn't realize how serious the problem was, even now, until Obama's election in 2008, when the latent racists in the U.S. crawled out of the woodwork.

The point then becomes the social method of conveying the history.
The Jim Crow era that erected the 4 monuments deserves study. No question about that.
Cowboy tells of the verbal history handed down in his area. That is legit.
So the question becomes HOW is the history is presented. IMO that is where the monuments that were removed come up short because they don't tell an honest history..

Interesting topic.  When you think about it, does ANY society in history erect monuments based on "honest history?"

Most monuments are predicated on tribal or national mythology-- the social need for icons.  Americans never wanted to know much about George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, et.al. owning slaves (much less, screwing them.)

The Lincoln Memorial is a classic example.  Lincoln has been somewhat mythically lionized as the wise man who freed the slaves, etc. 

Of course, he did play a major role in that process, but, during Lincoln's lifetime, many leading Abolitionists (including Charles Sumner, James Garfield,et.al.) were irritated by Lincoln's reluctance to move forward with Emancipation at an earlier date.

[AlaCowboy]

May 22, 2017 0:02:33 GMT -5 Walter said:

May 21, 2017 23:49:03 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

       Yes, and Stalin blew up the Christ the Savior Cathedral  (and many other Russian Orthodox churches throughout the USSR) because he couldn't stand looking at it.

        So, the "victors" often tear down the monuments of their adversaries.

        Whether these monuments should be removed is really a moral question, in the final analysis.

         My own view is that the idealization of the Confederacy has been a bad thing for the U.S.-- and especially for black people.  I didn't realize how serious the problem was, even now, until Obama's election in 2008, when the latent racists in the U.S. crawled out of the woodwork.

The point then becomes the social method of conveying the history.
The Jim Crow era that erected the 4 monuments deserves study. No question about that.
Cowboy tells of the verbal history handed down in his area. That is legit.
So the question becomes HOW is the history is presented. IMO that is where the monuments that were removed come up short because they don't tell an honest history..

Removing memorials, renaming streets, and refusing to teach the true history isn't quite telling an honest history either. When the next power party wants to remove all the statues of Martin Luther King, Jr., and rename the streets from MLK Blvd to Trump Place, remember you were okay with it as long as it went your way.

[Deleted]

May 22, 2017 11:43:15 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

May 22, 2017 0:02:33 GMT -5 Walter said:

The point then becomes the social method of conveying the history.
The Jim Crow era that erected the 4 monuments deserves study. No question about that.
Cowboy tells of the verbal history handed down in his area. That is legit.
So the question becomes HOW is the history is presented. IMO that is where the monuments that were removed come up short because they don't tell an honest history..

Removing memorials, renaming streets, and refusing to teach the true history isn't quite telling an honest history either. When the next power party wants to remove all the statues of Martin Luther King, Jr., and rename the streets from MLK Blvd to Trump Place, remember you were okay with it as long as it went your way.

     I grew up near Denver's old 32nd Avenue, which for years now has been called Martin Luther King Blvd.

     I think it's great.

     What I can't stand is that the local wing nuts have named a section of I-25 near the Air Force Academy the "Ronald Reagan Highway."    They still haven't figured out down there that Reagan was a plutocratic con man-- speaking of American mythology.

    

[Walter]

May 22, 2017 11:43:15 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

May 22, 2017 0:02:33 GMT -5 Walter said:

The point then becomes the social method of conveying the history.
The Jim Crow era that erected the 4 monuments deserves study. No question about that.
Cowboy tells of the verbal history handed down in his area. That is legit.
So the question becomes HOW is the history is presented. IMO that is where the monuments that were removed come up short because they don't tell an honest history..

Removing memorials, renaming streets, and refusing to teach the true history isn't quite telling an honest history either. When the next power party wants to remove all the statues of Martin Luther King, Jr., and rename the streets from MLK Blvd to Trump Place, remember you were okay with it as long as it went your way.

Where did I ever say I was "okay" with a dishonest discussion of history?

[Walter]

May 22, 2017 11:01:56 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

May 22, 2017 0:02:33 GMT -5 Walter said:

The point then becomes the social method of conveying the history.
The Jim Crow era that erected the 4 monuments deserves study. No question about that.
Cowboy tells of the verbal history handed down in his area. That is legit.
So the question becomes HOW is the history is presented. IMO that is where the monuments that were removed come up short because they don't tell an honest history..

Interesting topic.  When you think about it, does ANY society in history erect monuments based on "honest history?"

Most monuments are predicated on tribal or national mythology-- the social need for icons.  Americans never wanted to know much about George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, et.al. owning slaves (much less, screwing them.)

The Lincoln Memorial is a classic example.  Lincoln has been somewhat mythically lionized as the wise man who freed the slaves, etc. 

Of course, he did play a major role in that process, but, during Lincoln's lifetime, many leading Abolitionists (including Charles Sumner, James Garfield,et.al.) were irritated by Lincoln's reluctance to move forward with Emancipation at an earlier date.

Physical monuments are, without a doubt, the absolute WORST way of honoring real history.

[daleko]

May 21, 2017 23:49:03 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

May 21, 2017 23:34:11 GMT -5 Walter said:

Notwithstanding the "outrage" over taking down symbols commemorating the Jim Crow era, it does raise the point of the self-righteous destruction of historically significant statuary and edifices by a ruling power. Pol Pot destroyed thousand year old Cambodian artifacts because he disliked the messages they conveyed. So this is not a black/white question.
There is an historical component.

       Yes, and Stalin blew up the Christ the Savior Cathedral  (and many other Russian Orthodox churches throughout the USSR) because he couldn't stand looking at it.

        So, the "victors" often tear down the monuments of their adversaries.

        Whether these monuments should be removed is really a moral question, in the final analysis.

         My own view is that the idealization of the Confederacy has been a bad thing for the U.S.-- and especially for black people.  I didn't realize how serious the problem was, even now, until Obama's election in 2008, when the latent racists in the U.S. crawled out of the woodwork.

Are you still OK with a statue that memorializes a person that massacred Indian women and children and ok w having a street named after him? Where's your outrage against your own city of Denver and state of Colorado? Where? Do you lay flowers honoring Chivington? You support chopping down one part of history, while mute about another. Hypocrite.

[Deleted]

May 22, 2017 16:18:21 GMT -5 daleko said:

May 21, 2017 23:49:03 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

       Yes, and Stalin blew up the Christ the Savior Cathedral  (and many other Russian Orthodox churches throughout the USSR) because he couldn't stand looking at it.

        So, the "victors" often tear down the monuments of their adversaries.

        Whether these monuments should be removed is really a moral question, in the final analysis.

         My own view is that the idealization of the Confederacy has been a bad thing for the U.S.-- and especially for black people.  I didn't realize how serious the problem was, even now, until Obama's election in 2008, when the latent racists in the U.S. crawled out of the woodwork.

Are you still OK with a statue that memorializes a person that massacred Indian women and children and ok w having a street named after him? Where's your outrage against your own city of Denver and state of Colorado? Where? Do you lay flowers honoring Chivington? You support chopping down one part of history, while mute about another. Hypocrite.

Huh?   When was I ever o.k. with a statue or a street being named after that Big Ten grifter, Chivington?  Chivington was from Ohio or Illinois, as I recall.

You've got the wrong guy, Daleko.

(BTW, I don't ever remember any streets in Denver named after Chivington-- at least nowhere near my old neighborhood.)

[oldgraylady]

www.salon.com/2013/03/16/the_south_still_lies_about_the_civil_war/

[Deleted]

May 22, 2017 18:46:44 GMT -5 oldgraylady said:

www.salon.com/2013/03/16/the_south_still_lies_about_the_civil_war/

Excellent article.