Philip wrote:All of the sudden clamor over various people suddenly outraged over old monuments and historical things - ready to destroy them or have them removed - has gotten me to thinking: Where does that end - to what degree do we do so?
First thing is, they are everywhere. There are monuments on the grounds of SC's statehouse honoring a few people from history that I find despicable racists - and so I don't think they are appropriate, find them offensive - particularly those whose public appeal was based upon such terrible views and statements. But where does such wholesale removals take us - and how far do we go? And, no doubt, whenever some agenda-laden group (especially over race or politics) decides some symbol from the past must go, it stirs up anger in those that find their cultural and personal meanings in their racial self-identification (whatever it might be). So, as if we don't have enough hatred and problems, people want to create immediate controversies that the media can help feed - as if it's a crisis. Really dangerous road to go down.
And how far do we take the removal of historical symbols. Do we bulldoze the houses of Jefferson and Washington - both slaveowners of hundreds of people? What about the American Indian museum - countless massacres of innocents by some tribes - and most of them carried out against other tribes - took slaves, too! Take away the American flag - some pretty terrible actions were done under that flag in the distant past. How about in other countries - how about destroying the tourist attractions of ancient Aztec and other warrior societies - where they not only took slaves, but also sacrificed children and virgins to pagan gods? Egypt, same deal? Europe - destroy all of those ancient slaveholding Greek and Roman sites - like the Coliseum - untold barbarity forced upon slaves.
I'll end with the Lincoln Memorial - perhaps we should bulldoze our cherished memorial to "St. Lincoln" - due to his comments upon blacks and slaves, made during the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates (just two years before he was elected president):
"I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
So, based upon the above, should not the Lincoln Memorial be razed as well???!!! See, it's a slippery slope with no end, even though clearly there are some monuments to people that were really bad human beings (I don't include Lincoln so much in that - as he was a man of his time, and I think his racial views slowly moderated, his actions mostly helpful. In fact, he received famous black abolitionist Frederick Douglas in the White House in 1863, and subsequently invited him back in 1864).
There is a strong, logical, measured argument against the removal of confederate statues. Somewhat similar to the ongoing debate in Australia over Australia Day, our indigenous see it as a celebration of their genocide and forced removal from their land and many support them, but many Australians think that whilst our history has undeniable wrongs it is a part of our history and the celebration is about moving forward and just a day when all Aussies can celebrate our nation.
Whilst I have an opinion on the matter (change the date), I see both sides.
Over the last few days I've heard and read many thoughts surrounding the issue of confederate statues and I'm divided, I can see both sides.
But what happened in Charlottesville wasn't reallly about a statue. Don't get me wrong there are very valid historical reasons to keep it there and had the protest been centered around the preservation of history it would have been a different matter but klan members with hoods and torches (interesting they chose evening, with glowing torches given the US history of lynchings), with nazis proudly displaying swatika symbolism marched through a neighbourhood.
In 2017 hooded Klan members took to the streets.
And they were met by a resistance; counter protesters and so they should be!
The media may play it out as 'sides' but when the kkk take to the streets its not a political clash of the alt right and left its citizens that won't tolerate that in their neighbourhood.
In the face of such blatant fascism and racism, it's the flavour of the day to point the finger at ANTIFA and the BLM movement and in fairness some of their ideology is extreme and I'm not a fan of extremists but neither are responsible for a death toll. In fact no one has died at their hands so it's rather fictitious and and inflammatory to compare neo nazis, white supremacists and the kkk who have an ugly history of murder and violence to such groups. I'm not suggesting that ANTIFA are a voice of reason but this is not a question of 'sides'!
When the kkk with hoods and torches march in the streets every group, citizen and voice of reason should stand against it. Not for political reasons but in the spirit of
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
