But what of our history?

[TemplarKormac]

There is a certain someone I know in my neck of the woods (whom I will not call out by name), who thinks we should simply admire our history from the pages of books and get rid of historical monuments deemed offensive because of what they memorialize, this all in a pique of emotion over what happened in Charlottesville. There's a problem with that however. History can be revised to fit a narrative, or a widely held ideological bias. History should be recited in its purest form, away from the preconceptions and political proclivities of those studying or retelling it.

Whether it be a monument on the ground or a picture on a page, history is history, and it would be no less offensive to the offended party if it were standing in public or pictured and written in a book. So what will this actually accomplish? When the offended party gets tired of seeing the images of or reading about these monuments in a book, will the book be the next thing to go?

There's no sating this kind of irrational thought. It is a slippery slope of imposed ignorance.

And before someone tells me that they as a taxpayer have a right to demand those monuments be removed, my grandmother (for example) has a right to demand they stay up, as a lawful taxpayer herself. Please do us all a favor and dispense with the self centered attitude.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Bump.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Nobody is suggesting that we so.anytjing with our history except learn from it.

Stop the hysterics.

 

[WillowTree]

Nobody is suggesting that we so.anytjing with our history except learn from it.

Stop the hysterics.

What? You can't learn without destroying?

 

[miketx]

There is a certain someone I know in my neck of the woods (whom I will not call out by name), who thinks we should simply admire our history from the pages of books and get rid of historical monuments deemed offensive because of what they memorialize, this all in a pique of emotion over what happened in Charlottesville. There's a problem with that however. History can be revised to fit a narrative, or a widely held ideological bias. History should be recited in its purest form, away from the preconceptions and political proclivities of those studying or retelling it.

Whether it be a monument on the ground or a picture on a page, history is history, and it would be no less offensive to the offended party if it were standing in public or pictured and written in a book. So what will this actually accomplish? When the offended party gets tired of seeing the images of or reading about these monuments in a book, will the book be the next thing to go?

There's no sating this kind of irrational thought. It is a slippery slope of imposed ignorance.

And before someone tells me that they as a taxpayer have a right to demand those monuments be removed, my grandmother (for example) has a right to demand they stay up, as a lawful taxpayer herself. Please do us all a favor and dispense with the self centered attitude.

What makes you think regressives will not target books next?

 

[Timmy]

These monuments were shit when they put them up . Bunch of but hurt southern losers .

Confeds were traitors who killed 1/2 mill us troops .

 

[BlackFlag]

If people in a town want to move a statue... why stop them?

 

[jwoodie]

Let's rewrite history every four years. Oh wait, the Dems are already doing that.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There is a certain someone I know in my neck of the woods (whom I will not call out by name), who thinks we should simply admire our history from the pages of books and get rid of historical monuments deemed offensive because of what they memorialize, this all in a pique of emotion over what happened in Charlottesville. There's a problem with that however. History can be revised to fit a narrative, or a widely held ideological bias. History should be recited in its purest form, away from the preconceptions and political proclivities of those studying or retelling it.

Whether it be a monument on the ground or a picture on a page, history is history, and it would be no less offensive to the offended party if it were standing in public or pictured and written in a book. So what will this actually accomplish? When the offended party gets tired of seeing the images of or reading about these monuments in a book, will the book be the next thing to go?

There's no sating this kind of irrational thought. It is a slippery slope of imposed ignorance.

And before someone tells me that they as a taxpayer have a right to demand those monuments be removed, my grandmother (for example) has a right to demand they stay up, as a lawful taxpayer herself. Please do us all a favor and dispense with the self centered attitude.

What makes you think regressives will not target books next?

I never said they wouldn't.

 

[mamooth]

History can be revised to fit a narrative, or a widely held ideological bias. History should be recited in its purest form, away from the preconceptions and political proclivities of those studying or retelling it.

And that's the opposite of what those statues did. They whitewashed history, revised it according to the political proclivities of the white supremacists in power at the time. We're just asking that your side's brazenly racist historical revisionism be undone.

And before someone tells me that they as a taxpayer have a right to demand those monuments be removed, my grandmother (for example) has a right to demand they stay up, as a lawful taxpayer herself. Please do us all a favor and dispense with the self centered attitude.

Ain't democracy wonderful?

Except when you don't like the results, apparently.

 

[Mousterian]

We learn from history only if our parents give us a 'balanced' view. This almost never happens, we inherit the prejudices and bigotry we're raised with, so history repeats itself endlessly.
But statues to Confederate generals are provocative, and a product of the Jim Crow period of the early 20th Century.
There's a good reason memorials to Hitler are nowhere to be seen, except in the homes of the neoNazis.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Nobody is suggesting that we so.anytjing with our history except learn from it.

Stop the hysterics.

What? You can't learn without destroying?

You think I want to destroy something? Why do you think this? Are you ASSuming?

 

[LoneLaugher]

We learn from history only if our parents give us a 'balanced' view. This almost never happens, we inherit the prejudices and bigotry we're raised with, so history repeats itself endlessly.
But statues to Confederate generals are provocative, and a product of the Jim Crow period of the early 20th Century.
There's a good reason memorials to Hitler are nowhere to be seen, except in the homes of the neoNazis.

True. How great would it be to grow up with fond childhood memories of fun white power picnics and family excursions to see all the places where the ******* were kept?

 

[Wry Catcher]

There is a certain someone I know in my neck of the woods (whom I will not call out by name), who thinks we should simply admire our history from the pages of books and get rid of historical monuments deemed offensive because of what they memorialize, this all in a pique of emotion over what happened in Charlottesville. There's a problem with that however. History can be revised to fit a narrative, or a widely held ideological bias. History should be recited in its purest form, away from the preconceptions and political proclivities of those studying or retelling it.

Whether it be a monument on the ground or a picture on a page, history is history, and it would be no less offensive to the offended party if it were standing in public or pictured and written in a book. So what will this actually accomplish? When the offended party gets tired of seeing the images of or reading about these monuments in a book, will the book be the next thing to go?

There's no sating this kind of irrational thought. It is a slippery slope of imposed ignorance.

And before someone tells me that they as a taxpayer have a right to demand those monuments be removed, my grandmother (for example) has a right to demand they stay up, as a lawful taxpayer herself. Please do us all a favor and dispense with the self centered attitude.

The best solution is to commission a several statues depicting actual history, for example:

• One depicting the anguish when a slave is sold and the children remain with the owner
• One depicting a slave being whipped by the overseer
• One showing a slave being raped by the slave owner

And placing these monuments to history in the parks and squares in our great nation. Let's be real, people!

 

[TemplarKormac]

And that's the opposite of what those statues did. They whitewashed history, revised it according to the political proclivities of the white supremacists in power at the time. We're just asking that your side's brazenly racist historical revisionism be undone.

Whoa hold up.

"Your side"? I am neither racist nor do I belong to any "side".

"...we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death."

--Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., dissenting opinion in Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919)

 

[LoneLaugher]

And that's the opposite of what those statues did. They whitewashed history, revised it according to the political proclivities of the white supremacists in power at the time. We're just asking that your side's brazenly racist historical revisionism be undone.

Whoa hold up.

"Your side"? I am neither racist nor do I belong to any "side".

"...we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death."

--Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., dissenting opinion in Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919)

Please.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The best solution is to commission several statues depicting actual history

And what would your definition of "actual history" be, hmm?

 

[TemplarKormac]

And that's the opposite of what those statues did. They whitewashed history, revised it according to the political proclivities of the white supremacists in power at the time. We're just asking that your side's brazenly racist historical revisionism be undone.

Whoa hold up.

"Your side"? I am neither racist nor do I belong to any "side".

"...we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death."

--Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., dissenting opinion in Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919)

Please.

Please what?

 

[BluesLegend]

The left are becoming pathetic, seriously the snowflakes are now offended by some damn 100+ year old statue? WTF you would think they would be offended by the lack of jobs and the number of minority murders in the inner cities they control.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why Not Put Truth on a Pedestal?