Lets see if I can do this without getting booted off the island.

East Coast, keep you finger hovered over the lock button.

History has been documented since man could write, for better or worse it happened. I recall some years ago people called Holocost Deniers insisted that an attempt to kill off an entire race of people never happened. It's history.

I understand the Confederate flag pinging strong emotions with some folks, but tell me why monuments to Civil War generals are being yanked down. It's history, it happened, these men fought a war like any modern soldier, fully believing in the cause and with full effort.

I don't know where this started, but lets say someone now accused Ben Franklin of being a pedophile, would we revamp our bills?

I grew up in the South where the local gas station had Men, Women and Colored bathrooms, where we didn't go south of so and so street and they didn't come north of it. Thankfully times have changed.

Statues and flags aren't documentation of history, that's what history books are for. The statues and flags are a celebration of those people and their ideals, like it or not. I'm sure you can appreciate why someone might not like to see the people who fought for their ancestors' enslavement celebrated with a statue or flag.

Germany gets it...

It's a huge PC mistake.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

I just wonder if anybody realizes how many U.S. military bases are named after confederate officers.

SVreX wrote: It's a huge PC mistake. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

I will agree the moment that scrubbing any information about the civil war from history books is proposed.

Also it's worth considering when these statues went up and who was behind it:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ap-explains-robert-lee-hero-racist-icon-49194474

In reply to GameboyRMH:

Actually, a statute that has stood in a town square for 50 years is, by definition, history (and potentially eligible for registry on the National Registry of Historic Places) regardless of whether we like it or not.

The better approach is to add a secondary plaque etc offering an education that contextualizes it.

Chadeux wrote: I just wonder if anybody realizes how many U.S. military bases are named after confederate officers.

Streets, towns, neighborhoods, etc.

How about surnames of current legislators?

I'm going to go ahead and toss your argument back at you. History happened, it's real, and it matters still today. Why should people be confronted by symbols of their ancestors overt oppression in public spaces? Those same people who still suffer from better hidden oppression today. The confederacy and the slavery it was built on is not the past that should be honored.

I grew up in the south. I'm still here. I'm a history buff in general and I believe that knowing the bad history is possibly more important than knowing the good. I also support taking down the statues in most cases - and moving them to historic sites or museums.

There are plenty of places to learn about history, our civic buildings and city parks don't have to serve that function. While I don't find those statues threatening or hurtful, I certainly understand while a large part of our population does. If it's that hurtful, why not move them? What does relocating them to a more learning or preservation focused venue hurt? The past can't be erased but it also doesn't have to loom over you every day as you walk into work, or to lunch, or whatever.

Understood. Why now?

SVreX wrote: Actually, a statute that has stood in a town square for 50 years is, by definition, history (and potentially eligible for registry on the National Registry of Historic Places) regardless of whether we like it or not.

More info for the history books IMO. I don't think age alone should be justification for an offensive symbol to remain in place indefinitely. Heck, how many of us on here have cars that are more than 50 years old? 240Z owners?

Edit: Actually the oldest 240Zs would be 48 now. MGB owners?

914Driver wrote: Understood. Why now?

Dylann Roof nudged things along a bit...

Because it may be "offensive" to some. And it makes good TV.

I had a lot more written here, with links to current lawsuits and trials that while EXTREMELY important and relevant are getting no air time while people argue about 200 year old statues, but decided against posting it all at risk of getting buried.

The confederacy was built on slavery. The secession was entirely to protect slave ownership. Those people that the statues commemorate were fighting to protect "state's rights" - the right to own other human beings, mistreat and beat them, even rape and impregnate them and continue to enslave the resulting children. Gameboy is right - that's not someone to have a statue of. It's directly comparable to having a statue of Hitler in downtown Berlin.

A 50 year old statue is not a precious historical artifact. It's evidence that even 50 years ago we had a long way to go in the civil rights battle. This conversation is evidence that, even now, we have a long way to go.

I live in a town that tried to erase its history. The result was significantly deeper racism and division.

Albany GA was where the Civil Rights movement began (under Martin Luther King), but had a rocky start. It's where King learned how to do non-violent protest, by failing to do it well. He then went to Birmingham, and the story began that we all know about.

I lived in Albany for 10 years before I learned about that past (by visiting the Birmingham Civil Rights Museum). No one here talks about it.

"Minorities" constitute 92% of the population. Ask any of them how the town is doing on race relations- not so good.

I would suggest that wiping out the memory from the town square is exactly the wrong way to handle it.

914Driver said: Understood. Why now?

Because the resurgence of a newly emboldened white supremacist movement has made it a critical issue central to white supremacy now. But also because we are still very slowly working through our overtly racist past. When the statues were erected to glorify that racist past, their eventual removal became inevitable on a path toward racial equality and justice.

The real question is: Why has it taken so long to make this progress?

WilD wrote:

914Driver said: Understood. Why now?

Because the resurgence of a newly emboldened white supremacist movement has made it a critical issue central to white supremacy now. But also because we are still very slowly working through our overtly racist past. When the statues were erected to glorify that racist past, their eventual removal became inevitable on a path toward racial equality and justice. The real question is: Why has it taken so long to make this progress?

I would guess it took this long because the side that wants the statues down also now has a means to express their point of view which for a long time they did not. How did the losing side get so many monuments in the first place?

Wall-e wrote: How did the losing side get so many monuments in the first place?

Check the same link I posted earlier...it wasn't "in the first place:"

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ap-explains-robert-lee-hero-racist-icon-49194474

Here's a thought - maybe rather than tearing down a statue they instead could add a plaque on the base that explains the history of the person and the era they lived in. It then changes from a commemoration of that person to an education about them. This may or may not be a good solution but it seems like it would be worth a discussion.

edited to add: per the link, I didn't realize how those statues were put up in the 20th century, I figured they had been around since the war. In that case their installation was kind of revisionist history in itself. So, I don't know the answer - personally, I pretty much walk by statues without paying much attention to them one way or the other so I'm not the person to be making decisions anyway.

In reply to Wall-e:

Because the losing side essentially stayed in power.

I was a civil war reenactor for many years. I know the history probably not as good as I used to but hey I was a big civil war geek for some time.

My thoughts are this, people evolve and change over time and we're not creating new land. So if people want to repurpose that land for something that meets the needs of the city now. Go for it. Ever visit the minster in York U.K.? It's built on a the remains of an earlier church which is built on the remains of an earlier church which is built on the remains of a roman fort. Over the years people saw little value in the roman fort, knocked it in and built something that suited them. It's kinda how we live. There are plenty of things over the years that have been knocked down or built over as the needs of the towns change. Hsitoric items that have outlived their usefulness and are valued belong in a museum or to be preserved. If the community sees no collective value, get rid of it and put in something useful.

I originally was of the "It's actual history, deal with it" mindset. While I still firmly believe that attempts to erase the actual history are misguided at best, I am beginning to understand that it is not easy for many many folks of all races to understand that feelings are changing somewhat regarding these monuments.

A statue that might have been erected to glorify a given Confederate person or event can still serve an educational purpose even though we (most of us, anyway) now recognize that glorification is inappropriate. But that is a subtle, rational distinction. It is not an easy distinction to make for some of those on both sides of the issue.

So I understand and support a drive to relocate these monuments to educational museum settings. They shouldn't be destroyed or buried. But they probably should be placed in a context where it is clearly understood that this is acknowledgement and understanding of a sad part of history, rather than celebration of something evil.

ultraclyde wrote: I grew up in the south. I'm still here. I'm a history buff in general and I believe that knowing the bad history is possibly more important than knowing the good. I also support taking down the statues in most cases - and moving them to historic sites or museums. There are plenty of places to learn about history, our civic buildings and city parks don't have to serve that function. While I don't find those statues threatening or hurtful, I certainly understand while a large part of our population does. If it's that hurtful, why not move them? What does relocating them to a more learning or preservation focused venue hurt? The past can't be erased but it also doesn't have to loom over you every day as you walk into work, or to lunch, or whatever.

This.

In reply to stuart in mn:

That is basically what they were trying to do in most instances. Move the statues to an appropriate location and to add historical context. Let's just say that solution isn't acceptable to a very vocal group of people who want the statues to stay where they are, for the same reason they were put there in the first place...

From what I understand the plan is for the ones that have been taken down so far to be put into some kind of museum...I see no problem with that.