Confederate monuments

[barknoxbrawler]

Confederate monuments- do they stay in place Or taken down?

This has become a hot issue in our current American climate. What say you volnation? I for one believe we can learn our history without having monuments. I respected and learned about Washington and Lincoln long before I ever visited DC. I learned about great battle commanders such as Nathan Bedford Forrest and can separate what he did do one day, from things he did another.

 

[n_huffhines]

Depends on the monument, I suppose. Monuments are not "history", they are endorsements of history.

 

[barknoxbrawler]

Depends on the monument, I suppose. Monuments are not "history", they are endorsements of history.

Good answer. I tend to agree although I don’t see them as endorsements. I see them as “in memory of”. Monuments are placed on cemetery plots and they are not for endorsing the dead but to remember them living.

 

[photovol]

Turn liberals into stone monuments and then crush them into the dirt

 

[n_huffhines]

Good answer. I tend to agree although I don’t see them as endorsements. I see them as “in memory of”. Monuments are placed on cemetery plots and they are not for endorsing the dead but to remember them living.

They are absolutely endorsements, IMO. A monument on a cemetary plot is there because the person is buried there (and probably the person's kin paid for it). When a city takes public land and funds to build a monument to a historical figure, it's because they see that figure positively. If you can think of one example where this was done for a figure that was viewed negatively at the time the monument was built, I'll be very surprised.

 

[tvolsfan]

I voted yes, though there are probably a few exceptions.

 

[Roustabout]

Not all monuments are the same.
A statue of Jefferson Davis isn’t the same as a monument in the hometown of the men who died in combat.

 

[tvolsfan]

Not all monuments are the same.
A statue of Jefferson Davis isn’t the same as a monument in the hometown of the men who died in combat.

This is one of the few exceptions. I have no issue with a city or state having a monument saluting those who fought and died in defense of the state.

 

[RikidyBones]

This is a city discussion and each town can make their own choice on that. Their OWN choice. Not the choice of nonresidents.

 

[n_huffhines]

This is a city discussion and each town can make their own choice on that. Their OWN choice. Not the choice of nonresidents.

We're debating the merits of the city keeping it, not saying we're going to pass federal law or something.

 

[1972 Grad]

How about there's no way that a statue can possibly hurt anyone? If a statue bothers you that much, you need to grow a pair.

 

[hog88]

How about there's no way that a statue can possibly hurt anyone? If a statue bothers you that much, you need to grow a pair.

It could fall on you if someone pushes it over.

 

[tvolsfan]

How about there's no way that a statue can possibly hurt anyone? If a statue bothers you that much, you need to grow a pair.

Again, we are debating the merits, not forming an action plan.

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

They are absolutely endorsements, IMO. A monument on a cemetary plot is there because the person is buried there (and probably the person's kin paid for it). When a city takes public land and funds to build a monument to a historical figure, it's because they see that figure positively. If you can think of one example where this was done for a figure that was viewed negatively at the time the monument was built, I'll be very surprised.

That would mean they're nobody's business other than the family of the dead soldier.

 

[1972 Grad]

Again, we are debating the merits, not forming an action plan.

The merits are that you need to grow a pair if a monument bothers you enough to want it torn down.

 

[n_huffhines]

That would mean they're nobody's business other than the family of the dead soldier.

Yes. I see them as entirely different from monuments paid for with public money and/or on public land.

 

[happy-go_vol]

Depends on the monument, I suppose. Monuments are not "history", they are endorsements of history.

No, they are not necessarily an endorsement.

 

[tvolsfan]

The merits are that you need to grow a pair if a monument bothers you enough to want it torn down.

I’ll take that as you’re unwilling to discuss the merits and are hiding behind the status quo.

 

[tvolsfan]

No, they are not necessarily an endorsement.

Should we have monuments of Bin Laden and Hitler? You know, so we don’t “forget” history?

 

[n_huffhines]

No, they are not necessarily an endorsement.

.

They are absolutely endorsements, IMO. A monument on a cemetary plot is there because the person is buried there (and probably the person's kin paid for it). When a city takes public land and funds to build a monument to a historical figure, it's because they see that figure positively. If you can think of one example where this was done for a figure that was viewed negatively at the time the monument was built, I'll be very surprised.

 

[n_huffhines]

Should we have monuments of Bin Laden and Hitler? You know, so we don’t “forget” history?

How about that American freedom fighter, Timothy McVeigh? After all, he had a few valid points about Waco and whatnot.

 

[n_huffhines]

This one can be taken down next, as far as I'm concerned

General William Tecumseh Sherman Monument - Wikipedia

 

[happy-go_vol]

Maybe we should get rid of all monuments and start our history on 1960. You marxists would love that

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

Yes. I see them as entirely different from monuments paid for with public money and/or on public land.

I respect that

 

[tvolsfan]

Maybe we should get rid of all monuments and start our history on 1960. You marxists would love that

Screech!