New Orleans City Council Gives Confederate Monuments The Boot

[Correll]

Liberals are enemies. It goes way beyond agreement or disagreement.

LOL You are so misguided and manipulated. Your lips are permantently planted on the ass of Faux News.

Says the lib that thinks the MSM is professional and objective.

Where did I say that.

I went out on a limb based on your level of fairly standard Leftie think.

Am I wrong?

I don't watch cable news. I've seen it in the past but not in a couple years.

1. MSM is not limited to cable news.

2. You remember what they were like a couple of years ago.

3. You did not answer my question.

 

[IsaacNewton]

LOL You are so misguided and manipulated. Your lips are permantently planted on the ass of Faux News.

Says the lib that thinks the MSM is professional and objective.

Where did I say that.

I went out on a limb based on your level of fairly standard Leftie think.

Am I wrong?

I don't watch cable news. I've seen it in the past but not in a couple years.

1. MSM is not limited to cable news.

2. You remember what they were like a couple of years ago.

3. You did not answer my question.

I rely on fact, wherever it comes from. Reason. Rather than the magical flying grandpa or some failed disc jockey on the radio or failed actor on a fake 'news' channel.

 

[Pogo]

How so? Trump will stop cities from removing their own statues?

Actually he doesn't have to. Local people and some Lawyers can tie this up for decades.

First they can request that an Environmental Impact Statement be created for the work of removing the statues from public lands. That alone will probably last a few years.

Then, If Louisiana has any cultural artifact or landmark laws, they can fight it on those grounds.

Finally, if they really want to gum up the works they can assert State sovereignty over public spaces. That may not be true, but one can tie up the work for even more time doing that.

This far is from over but the idea that Trump can squash this is patently absurd.

I agree. He could declare them national landmarks, but I don't know if the mechanism for that is viable.

But it would add another layer to the court fight.

As a Historian the removal of these statues saddens me greatly but if this is what the people of New Orleans want...

Sometimes the will of the people has to be tempered by the rights of others in the minority to not have the mob dictate things like this. Its the entire concept of a constitutional republic.

Now is there a constitutional right to these Statues? of course not, that silly. But the idea that history can be purged by a majority vote is troubling in and of itself.

Where does it end? I'm sure a ton of cities have a Malcolm X Blvd (even if just honorary). He hated white people for a large part of his life, only rejecting that concept before he got assassinated. Why should those street signs remain?

Mostly worthy points here with the exceptions:

(1)-

the idea that history can be purged

... moving or removing statues/monuments does not amount to "purging history". It has no relationship to history. Purging history would be removing something from the historical record. That's not at all what reallocating which persons/events are worthy of an honorific amounts to.

The persons and events still exist in history, and must remain there. To suggest that de-honorizing them somehow alters the record of who they were and what they did amounts to Appeal to Emotion. What has changed is not the historical record, but their perceived value.

Social mores change and evolve. In his time and its immediate epilogue, Jeff Davis was simply more esteemed than he is now, and that was when the honorifics went up. Now that his star has faded, the city, in this case, decides it's no longer reflective of the evolved public perception, and is in fact contrary to it, hence the de-honorizing. Ultimately it's a matter of how the city wants to express itself. It's entirely symbolic, nothing to do with historical record.

And ultimately in practical terms it's a pain in the ass, since these names for the most part serve a mundane purpose having nothing to do with the namesake: "take St. Charles to Lee Circle..." or "it's on Jeff Davis Parkway". I doubt that Jeff Davis Pie will be renamed though, or that anybody will quit making it because of its name (or history).


And (2) --

Malcolm X Blvd (even if just honorary). He hated white people for a large part of his life

I'm not aware of evidence that he "hated white people". The white system, certainly, and its effects -- not the people themselves.

In any case the only Malcolm X Boulevards I could find was one in Brooklyn and as a dual (shared) name for a portion of Lenox Avenue in Manhattan that runs through Harlem.

 

[Asclepias]

Actually he doesn't have to. Local people and some Lawyers can tie this up for decades.

First they can request that an Environmental Impact Statement be created for the work of removing the statues from public lands. That alone will probably last a few years.

Then, If Louisiana has any cultural artifact or landmark laws, they can fight it on those grounds.

Finally, if they really want to gum up the works they can assert State sovereignty over public spaces. That may not be true, but one can tie up the work for even more time doing that.

This far is from over but the idea that Trump can squash this is patently absurd.

I agree. He could declare them national landmarks, but I don't know if the mechanism for that is viable.

But it would add another layer to the court fight.

As a Historian the removal of these statues saddens me greatly but if this is what the people of New Orleans want...

Sometimes the will of the people has to be tempered by the rights of others in the minority to not have the mob dictate things like this. Its the entire concept of a constitutional republic.

Now is there a constitutional right to these Statues? of course not, that silly. But the idea that history can be purged by a majority vote is troubling in and of itself.

Where does it end? I'm sure a ton of cities have a Malcolm X Blvd (even if just honorary). He hated white people for a large part of his life, only rejecting that concept before he got assassinated. Why should those street signs remain?

Mostly worthy points here with the exceptions:

(1)-

the idea that history can be purged

... moving or removing statues/monuments does not amount to "purging history". It has no relationship to history. Purging history would be removing something from the historical record. That's not at all what reallocating which persons/events are worthy of an honorific amounts to.

The persons and events still exist in history, and must remain there. To suggest that de-honorizing them somehow alters the record of who they were and what they did amounts to Appeal to Emotion. What has changed is not the historical record, but their perceived value.

Social mores change and evolve. In his time and its immediate epilogue, Jeff Davis was simply more esteemed than he is now, and that was when the honorifics went up. Now that his star has faded, the city, in this case, decides it's no longer reflective of the evolved public perception, and is in fact contrary to it, hence the de-honorizing. Ultimately it's a matter of how the city wants to express itself. It's entirely symbolic, nothing to do with historical record.

And ultimately in practical terms it's a pain in the ass, since these names for the most part serve a mundane purpose having nothing to do with the namesake: "take St. Charles to Lee Circle..." or "it's on Jeff Davis Parkway". I doubt that Jeff Davis Pie will be renamed though, or that anybody will quit making it because of its name (or history).


And (2) --

Malcolm X Blvd (even if just honorary). He hated white people for a large part of his life

I'm not aware of evidence that he "hated white people". The white system, certainly, and its effects -- not the people themselves.

In any case the only Malcolm X Boulevards I could find was one in Brooklyn and as a dual (shared) name for a portion of Lenox Avenue in Manhattan that runs through Harlem.

Marty likes disregard events in history that dont conform to his argument. Its a known fact Malcolm X publicly denounced his former racist views which I am sure not even one inbred confederate did before dying. I have more respect for a man that admits his faults and changes than one that keeps the same faulty and dishonorable views.

 

[martybegan]

Actually he doesn't have to. Local people and some Lawyers can tie this up for decades.

First they can request that an Environmental Impact Statement be created for the work of removing the statues from public lands. That alone will probably last a few years.

Then, If Louisiana has any cultural artifact or landmark laws, they can fight it on those grounds.

Finally, if they really want to gum up the works they can assert State sovereignty over public spaces. That may not be true, but one can tie up the work for even more time doing that.

This far is from over but the idea that Trump can squash this is patently absurd.

I agree. He could declare them national landmarks, but I don't know if the mechanism for that is viable.

But it would add another layer to the court fight.

As a Historian the removal of these statues saddens me greatly but if this is what the people of New Orleans want...

Sometimes the will of the people has to be tempered by the rights of others in the minority to not have the mob dictate things like this. Its the entire concept of a constitutional republic.

Now is there a constitutional right to these Statues? of course not, that silly. But the idea that history can be purged by a majority vote is troubling in and of itself.

Where does it end? I'm sure a ton of cities have a Malcolm X Blvd (even if just honorary). He hated white people for a large part of his life, only rejecting that concept before he got assassinated. Why should those street signs remain?

Mostly worthy points here with the exceptions:

(1)-

the idea that history can be purged

... moving or removing statues/monuments does not amount to "purging history". It has no relationship to history. Purging history would be removing something from the historical record. That's not at all what reallocating which persons/events are worthy of an honorific amounts to.

The persons and events still exist in history, and must remain there. To suggest that de-honorizing them somehow alters the record of who they were and what they did amounts to Appeal to Emotion. What has changed is not the historical record, but their perceived value.

Social mores change and evolve. In his time and its immediate epilogue, Jeff Davis was simply more esteemed than he is now, and that was when the honorifics went up. Now that his star has faded, the city, in this case, decides it's no longer reflective of the evolved public perception, and is in fact contrary to it, hence the de-honorizing. Ultimately it's a matter of how the city wants to express itself. It's entirely symbolic, nothing to do with historical record.

And ultimately in practical terms it's a pain in the ass, since these names for the most part serve a mundane purpose having nothing to do with the namesake: "take St. Charles to Lee Circle..." or "it's on Jeff Davis Parkway". I doubt that Jeff Davis Pie will be renamed though, or that anybody will quit making it because of its name (or history).


And (2) --

Malcolm X Blvd (even if just honorary). He hated white people for a large part of his life

I'm not aware of evidence that he "hated white people". The white system, certainly, and its effects -- not the people themselves.

In any case the only Malcolm X Boulevards I could find was one in Brooklyn and as a dual (shared) name for a portion of Lenox Avenue in Manhattan that runs through Harlem.

You may think it isn't about purging history, but for the people who care enough to have these things removed, it sure as hell is. Again, when we made peace with the South, part of the whole concept was forgiveness and return to the US. That was the crux of the fight. We let them have their remembrance, and they played nice (mostly) with being part of the US again.

The campaign to get rid of these statues is not a groundswell, its the agitated longings of a vocal few, combined with the ambivalence of the majority.

42 Quotes from The Autobiography of Malcolm X

And on the topic of Malcolm X
An earlier quote:

“For the white man to ask the black man if he hates him is just like the rapist asking the raped, or the wolf asking the sheep, ‘Do you hate me?’ The white man is in no moral position to accuse anyone else of hate! Why, when all of my ancestors are snake-bitten, and I’m snake-bitten, and I warn my children to avoid snakes, what does that snake sound like accusing me of hate-teaching? ” [245]

And when he found the light.

“In the past, yes, I have made sweeping indictments of all white people. I never will be guilty of that again – as I know now that some white people are truly sincere, that some truly are capable of being brotherly toward a black man. The true Islam has shown me that a blanket indictment of all white people is as wrong as when whites made blanket indictments against blacks.” [369]

 

[Correll]

Says the lib that thinks the MSM is professional and objective.

Where did I say that.

I went out on a limb based on your level of fairly standard Leftie think.

Am I wrong?

I don't watch cable news. I've seen it in the past but not in a couple years.

1. MSM is not limited to cable news.

2. You remember what they were like a couple of years ago.

3. You did not answer my question.

I rely on fact, wherever it comes from. Reason. Rather than the magical flying grandpa or some failed disc jockey on the radio or failed actor on a fake 'news' channel.

Soooooo, do you think the MSM is professional and objective?

 

[Pogo]

This far is from over but the idea that Trump can squash this is patently absurd.

I agree. He could declare them national landmarks, but I don't know if the mechanism for that is viable.

But it would add another layer to the court fight.

As a Historian the removal of these statues saddens me greatly but if this is what the people of New Orleans want...

Sometimes the will of the people has to be tempered by the rights of others in the minority to not have the mob dictate things like this. Its the entire concept of a constitutional republic.

Now is there a constitutional right to these Statues? of course not, that silly. But the idea that history can be purged by a majority vote is troubling in and of itself.

Where does it end? I'm sure a ton of cities have a Malcolm X Blvd (even if just honorary). He hated white people for a large part of his life, only rejecting that concept before he got assassinated. Why should those street signs remain?

Mostly worthy points here with the exceptions:

(1)-

the idea that history can be purged

... moving or removing statues/monuments does not amount to "purging history". It has no relationship to history. Purging history would be removing something from the historical record. That's not at all what reallocating which persons/events are worthy of an honorific amounts to.

The persons and events still exist in history, and must remain there. To suggest that de-honorizing them somehow alters the record of who they were and what they did amounts to Appeal to Emotion. What has changed is not the historical record, but their perceived value.

Social mores change and evolve. In his time and its immediate epilogue, Jeff Davis was simply more esteemed than he is now, and that was when the honorifics went up. Now that his star has faded, the city, in this case, decides it's no longer reflective of the evolved public perception, and is in fact contrary to it, hence the de-honorizing. Ultimately it's a matter of how the city wants to express itself. It's entirely symbolic, nothing to do with historical record.

And ultimately in practical terms it's a pain in the ass, since these names for the most part serve a mundane purpose having nothing to do with the namesake: "take St. Charles to Lee Circle..." or "it's on Jeff Davis Parkway". I doubt that Jeff Davis Pie will be renamed though, or that anybody will quit making it because of its name (or history).


And (2) --

Malcolm X Blvd (even if just honorary). He hated white people for a large part of his life

I'm not aware of evidence that he "hated white people". The white system, certainly, and its effects -- not the people themselves.

In any case the only Malcolm X Boulevards I could find was one in Brooklyn and as a dual (shared) name for a portion of Lenox Avenue in Manhattan that runs through Harlem.

Marty likes disregard events in history that dont conform to his argument. Its a known fact Malcolm X publicly denounced his former racist views which I am sure not even one inbred confederate did before dying. I have more respect for a man that admits his faults and changes than one that keeps the same faulty and dishonorable views.

I don't know Malcolm's history as well as some but what always impressed me was that, regardless of whatever emotional invective went along with it, his arguments came from logic and were thought through. In other words they were starkly honest. I respect that. It's the trait I'm always seeking (or railing against when it's lacking) on this board.

 

[Asclepias]

This far is from over but the idea that Trump can squash this is patently absurd.

I agree. He could declare them national landmarks, but I don't know if the mechanism for that is viable.

But it would add another layer to the court fight.

As a Historian the removal of these statues saddens me greatly but if this is what the people of New Orleans want...

Sometimes the will of the people has to be tempered by the rights of others in the minority to not have the mob dictate things like this. Its the entire concept of a constitutional republic.

Now is there a constitutional right to these Statues? of course not, that silly. But the idea that history can be purged by a majority vote is troubling in and of itself.

Where does it end? I'm sure a ton of cities have a Malcolm X Blvd (even if just honorary). He hated white people for a large part of his life, only rejecting that concept before he got assassinated. Why should those street signs remain?

Mostly worthy points here with the exceptions:

(1)-

the idea that history can be purged

... moving or removing statues/monuments does not amount to "purging history". It has no relationship to history. Purging history would be removing something from the historical record. That's not at all what reallocating which persons/events are worthy of an honorific amounts to.

The persons and events still exist in history, and must remain there. To suggest that de-honorizing them somehow alters the record of who they were and what they did amounts to Appeal to Emotion. What has changed is not the historical record, but their perceived value.

Social mores change and evolve. In his time and its immediate epilogue, Jeff Davis was simply more esteemed than he is now, and that was when the honorifics went up. Now that his star has faded, the city, in this case, decides it's no longer reflective of the evolved public perception, and is in fact contrary to it, hence the de-honorizing. Ultimately it's a matter of how the city wants to express itself. It's entirely symbolic, nothing to do with historical record.

And ultimately in practical terms it's a pain in the ass, since these names for the most part serve a mundane purpose having nothing to do with the namesake: "take St. Charles to Lee Circle..." or "it's on Jeff Davis Parkway". I doubt that Jeff Davis Pie will be renamed though, or that anybody will quit making it because of its name (or history).


And (2) --

Malcolm X Blvd (even if just honorary). He hated white people for a large part of his life

I'm not aware of evidence that he "hated white people". The white system, certainly, and its effects -- not the people themselves.

In any case the only Malcolm X Boulevards I could find was one in Brooklyn and as a dual (shared) name for a portion of Lenox Avenue in Manhattan that runs through Harlem.

You may think it isn't about purging history, but for the people who care enough to have these things removed, it sure as hell is. Again, when we made peace with the South, part of the whole concept was forgiveness and return to the US. That was the crux of the fight. We let them have their remembrance, and they played nice (mostly) with being part of the US again.

The campaign to get rid of these statues is not a groundswell, its the agitated longings of a vocal few, combined with the ambivalence of the majority.

42 Quotes from The Autobiography of Malcolm X

And on the topic of Malcolm X
An earlier quote:

“For the white man to ask the black man if he hates him is just like the rapist asking the raped, or the wolf asking the sheep, ‘Do you hate me?’ The white man is in no moral position to accuse anyone else of hate! Why, when all of my ancestors are snake-bitten, and I’m snake-bitten, and I warn my children to avoid snakes, what does that snake sound like accusing me of hate-teaching? ” [245]

And when he found the light.

“In the past, yes, I have made sweeping indictments of all white people. I never will be guilty of that again – as I know now that some white people are truly sincere, that some truly are capable of being brotherly toward a black man. The true Islam has shown me that a blanket indictment of all white people is as wrong as when whites made blanket indictments against blacks.” [369]

Where is the equivalent for the confederates?

 

[Pogo]

This far is from over but the idea that Trump can squash this is patently absurd.

I agree. He could declare them national landmarks, but I don't know if the mechanism for that is viable.

But it would add another layer to the court fight.

As a Historian the removal of these statues saddens me greatly but if this is what the people of New Orleans want...

Sometimes the will of the people has to be tempered by the rights of others in the minority to not have the mob dictate things like this. Its the entire concept of a constitutional republic.

Now is there a constitutional right to these Statues? of course not, that silly. But the idea that history can be purged by a majority vote is troubling in and of itself.

Where does it end? I'm sure a ton of cities have a Malcolm X Blvd (even if just honorary). He hated white people for a large part of his life, only rejecting that concept before he got assassinated. Why should those street signs remain?

Mostly worthy points here with the exceptions:

(1)-

the idea that history can be purged

... moving or removing statues/monuments does not amount to "purging history". It has no relationship to history. Purging history would be removing something from the historical record. That's not at all what reallocating which persons/events are worthy of an honorific amounts to.

The persons and events still exist in history, and must remain there. To suggest that de-honorizing them somehow alters the record of who they were and what they did amounts to Appeal to Emotion. What has changed is not the historical record, but their perceived value.

Social mores change and evolve. In his time and its immediate epilogue, Jeff Davis was simply more esteemed than he is now, and that was when the honorifics went up. Now that his star has faded, the city, in this case, decides it's no longer reflective of the evolved public perception, and is in fact contrary to it, hence the de-honorizing. Ultimately it's a matter of how the city wants to express itself. It's entirely symbolic, nothing to do with historical record.

And ultimately in practical terms it's a pain in the ass, since these names for the most part serve a mundane purpose having nothing to do with the namesake: "take St. Charles to Lee Circle..." or "it's on Jeff Davis Parkway". I doubt that Jeff Davis Pie will be renamed though, or that anybody will quit making it because of its name (or history).


And (2) --

Malcolm X Blvd (even if just honorary). He hated white people for a large part of his life

I'm not aware of evidence that he "hated white people". The white system, certainly, and its effects -- not the people themselves.

In any case the only Malcolm X Boulevards I could find was one in Brooklyn and as a dual (shared) name for a portion of Lenox Avenue in Manhattan that runs through Harlem.

You may think it isn't about purging history, but for the people who care enough to have these things removed, it sure as hell is. Again, when we made peace with the South, part of the whole concept was forgiveness and return to the US. That was the crux of the fight. We let them have their remembrance, and they played nice (mostly) with being part of the US again.

The campaign to get rid of these statues is not a groundswell, its the agitated longings of a vocal few, combined with the ambivalence of the majority.

42 Quotes from The Autobiography of Malcolm X

And on the topic of Malcolm X
An earlier quote:

“For the white man to ask the black man if he hates him is just like the rapist asking the raped, or the wolf asking the sheep, ‘Do you hate me?’ The white man is in no moral position to accuse anyone else of hate! Why, when all of my ancestors are snake-bitten, and I’m snake-bitten, and I warn my children to avoid snakes, what does that snake sound like accusing me of hate-teaching? ” [245]

And when he found the light.

“In the past, yes, I have made sweeping indictments of all white people. I never will be guilty of that again – as I know now that some white people are truly sincere, that some truly are capable of being brotherly toward a black man. The true Islam has shown me that a blanket indictment of all white people is as wrong as when whites made blanket indictments against blacks.” [369]

And exactly HOW (#1) does such an action in any way alter the historical record? How? Do paragraphs about Robert E. Lee or Jeff Davis magically disappear from history books because a city council un-named a monument or moved it?

Statues and monuments are not the historical record; they are a positive emphasis of some person or event. What's happening here is a city that decides that positively emphasizing this person or that event is not what the city should be doing. That's got nothing to do with what actually went down in history. If anything this move by the city spurs at least some people who never gave a thought to what such person or event means, to become more informed. That alone is a positive.

You may think it isn't about purging history, but for the people who care enough to have these things removed, it sure as hell is.

Not at all. It's what city administration actions are always about -- the city's image.


#2 looks like a metaphor to my eyes. I see where he acknowledges "sweeping indictments". I do not see where he articulates "hate", either then or previously. I see where his older statement refers to actions and their consequences; I don't see where they articulated an emotion.

 

[Asclepias]

I agree. He could declare them national landmarks, but I don't know if the mechanism for that is viable.

But it would add another layer to the court fight.

As a Historian the removal of these statues saddens me greatly but if this is what the people of New Orleans want...

Sometimes the will of the people has to be tempered by the rights of others in the minority to not have the mob dictate things like this. Its the entire concept of a constitutional republic.

Now is there a constitutional right to these Statues? of course not, that silly. But the idea that history can be purged by a majority vote is troubling in and of itself.

Where does it end? I'm sure a ton of cities have a Malcolm X Blvd (even if just honorary). He hated white people for a large part of his life, only rejecting that concept before he got assassinated. Why should those street signs remain?

Mostly worthy points here with the exceptions:

(1)-

the idea that history can be purged

... moving or removing statues/monuments does not amount to "purging history". It has no relationship to history. Purging history would be removing something from the historical record. That's not at all what reallocating which persons/events are worthy of an honorific amounts to.

The persons and events still exist in history, and must remain there. To suggest that de-honorizing them somehow alters the record of who they were and what they did amounts to Appeal to Emotion. What has changed is not the historical record, but their perceived value.

Social mores change and evolve. In his time and its immediate epilogue, Jeff Davis was simply more esteemed than he is now, and that was when the honorifics went up. Now that his star has faded, the city, in this case, decides it's no longer reflective of the evolved public perception, and is in fact contrary to it, hence the de-honorizing. Ultimately it's a matter of how the city wants to express itself. It's entirely symbolic, nothing to do with historical record.

And ultimately in practical terms it's a pain in the ass, since these names for the most part serve a mundane purpose having nothing to do with the namesake: "take St. Charles to Lee Circle..." or "it's on Jeff Davis Parkway". I doubt that Jeff Davis Pie will be renamed though, or that anybody will quit making it because of its name (or history).


And (2) --

Malcolm X Blvd (even if just honorary). He hated white people for a large part of his life

I'm not aware of evidence that he "hated white people". The white system, certainly, and its effects -- not the people themselves.

In any case the only Malcolm X Boulevards I could find was one in Brooklyn and as a dual (shared) name for a portion of Lenox Avenue in Manhattan that runs through Harlem.

Marty likes disregard events in history that dont conform to his argument. Its a known fact Malcolm X publicly denounced his former racist views which I am sure not even one inbred confederate did before dying. I have more respect for a man that admits his faults and changes than one that keeps the same faulty and dishonorable views.

I don't know Malcolm's history as well as some but what always impressed me was that, regardless of whatever emotional invective went along with it, his arguments came from logic and were thought through. In other words they were starkly honest. I respect that. It's the trait I'm always seeking (or railing against when it's lacking) on this board.

Malcolm X is probably the only person I would consider a hero. His comments towards whites were certainly not PC. However, I think a lot of people mistook his commitment to Black people as "hate" towards whites.

 

[Manonthestreet]

No input from the citizens or historians....... Govt at its finest

 

[Pogo]

No input from the citizens or historians....... Govt at its finest

The citizens had public input for months in a lively public debate:

>> The opposition to the monuments’ removal — in op-ed articles, social media posts and shouting at public meetings — was vigorous. Gov. Bobby Jindal wanted to keep the monuments, and a group opposing their removal said it had collected 31,000 signatures for a petition.

“We cannot hit a delete button for the messy parts of our history,” Michael Duplantier, a resident, said during public remarks at the hearing Thursday.

The removal was supported by a local landmarks commission, the Human Relations Commission and a group of church leaders.

“Those symbols represent the very worst part of the history of this city,” said Rashida Govan, who told the council she was speaking for the Urban League. << (from here)​

As for "historians" --- what the **** do they have to do with it?

 

[Asclepias]

No input from the citizens or historians....... Govt at its finest

I get the sense you dont understand the situation. Historians have dick to do with it.

 

[dilloduck]

mob rule

 

[ClosedCaption]

No input from the citizens or historians....... Govt at its finest

The citizens had public input for months in a lively public debate:

>> The opposition to the monuments’ removal — in op-ed articles, social media posts and shouting at public meetings — was vigorous. Gov. Bobby Jindal wanted to keep the monuments, and a group opposing their removal said it had collected 31,000 signatures for a petition.

“We cannot hit a delete button for the messy parts of our history,” Michael Duplantier, a resident, said during public remarks at the hearing Thursday.

The removal was supported by a local landmarks commission, the Human Relations Commission and a group of church leaders.

“Those symbols represent the very worst part of the history of this city,” said Rashida Govan, who told the council she was speaking for the Urban League. << (from here)​

As for "historians" --- what the **** do they have to do with it?

What he meant to say was "I have no input on this story from Newspapers or Internet...Ignorance at its finest"

 

[Liminal]

Fly it proud!

The South doesn't need to rise. It needs to get into the foundation and weaken that.

Calling for the downfall of the US government.

Radical jihad if I've ever seen it.

You have to be a real dummy to mix and match history to fit a contemporary agenda.

Research 'metaphor' and 'analogy'. Learn something for a change.

No doubt metaphors and analogies represent the full extent of your knowledge of history.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Correct.

Slavery, racism, hate, and the terrible cost of the Civil War will be remembered and taught, but it shouldn't be celebrated.

The memorial statues have nothing to do with slavery, racism or hate.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

I would think the State Historical Society would have something to say about the removal of historical statues. When something is declared a historical landmark, you can't touch it, not even bigoted council members.

 

[Asclepias]

Correct.

Slavery, racism, hate, and the terrible cost of the Civil War will be remembered and taught, but it shouldn't be celebrated.

The memorial statues have nothing to do with slavery, racism or hate.

If you leave out the loser confederate part you could be right.....almost.

 

[Asclepias]

I would think the State Historical Society would have something to say about the removal of historical statues. When something is declared a historical landmark, you can't touch it, not even bigoted council members.

That was your first mistake. You tried to think without the instruction manual you were given.