Of course not, I'm against such displays but it might be within the rights of the property owner to do something like that though. Removing them from government buildings, parks, schools etc seems like a much higher priority and within the legal powers of a city or state government.
And like I've said, there's legitimate historical reason to keep at least some of them up. The same reason why the military doesn't re-name bases that were named after confederate officers. Like it or not, the Civil war is part of American history and monuments where things happened or where important people from that history should remain IMO.
So, you're good with, say, a statue of Hirohito at Pearl Harbor? Because like it or not, WWII is a part of American history and you believe that monuments were things happened or where IMPORTANT PEOPLE from that history should be there in your opinion. Right?
Well, of course not, be you didn't say that statues should remain because they were from there. You specifically said that it's because the war in which they participated was a part of American history and that they were important people. So, is it the geography that's most significant?
I actually did say that previously. Having a statue of one of those people in their home state makes sense. They were Americans after all and were important parts of American history....even if that history is not pleasant.
But if a city like New Orleans etc decided that they want to remove confederate statues from their courthouse, park, school etc, as far as I'm concerned that's within their right. I personally just don't think removing a bunch of statues that was created 50-80 years after the civil ended in an attempt to rewrite history is in fact trying to erase history.
it's well within their rights for any city to remove any statue, I wasn't questioning the right to do it, I was questioning if it should be done.
Unfortunately, I have an issue with Americans that take up arms against America. Those statues weren't erected because they were great Americans. They were erected by bitter Confederate and Confederate sympathizers angry that they lost. There's nothing honorable about them in my opinion. I have zero problem with them being removed. And for the record, the whining about "erasing history" is pathetic. Participation trophies created by defeated traitors aren't history.
I never said i was due to them being "great Americans", you do realize that you can memorialize history without making an ubermensch out of those from the past right?
I disagree that statues glorify them. I'm not sure we can get past that disagreement so we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I do agree some of the confederate monuments do have historical significance, but I just don't see the historical value for the vast majority of confederate monuments. I don't think it's a coincidence that the vast majority of these monuments were created during the Jim Crow law era
To be clear, I don't have a problem with removing some or possibly even most of them, I just have a problem with the blanket logic of "It's a Confederate monument, remove it" or "That person owned slaves, remove their monument or statue" Like most things, it should be done on a case by case basis. When left unchecked this kind of idiocy goes all sorts of stupid places, there has already been talk of removing statues of Sam Houston here in Houston because he was a slave owner.....hell they might even start trying to get the name of the city changed.
http://buzz.blog.ajc.com/2017/08/14...otesters-champions-unity-not-the-confederacy/ Now the peace statues are targets.
It's understandable, protesters are never the best or brightest of us.....they are the CometsWin types among us.
I think the OP has a problem with the media not saying that knocking down the statues is vandalism That's at least what I thought when seeing it. It wasn't a big deal to me but it crossed my mind Its not as much as they didn't call it vandalism but the reports I saw showed the people jumping and cheering without the media acknowledging it was crime
