Monuments

[striker42]

With the recent reigniting of pushes to have various monuments torn down, I think it raises an important issue. How much do we whitewash our history when it comes to who we chose to build monuments to?

Currently you're seeing a push to remove monuments to confederates or other southern defenders of slavery. But why are we stopping there? There are plenty of other monuments that may need to be questioned.

First, there's the Washington Monument. George Washington wealth was based largely upon his use of slaves and as a slave owner, Washington approved of beating disobedient slaves.

Next there's the Jefferson Memorial. For all his hand wringing over slavery and talk of all men being created equal, Jefferson owned slaves his entire adult life and could never bring himself to overcome his own hypocrisy.

Lincoln may have been said to have freed the slaves but his speeches and writings reveal Lincoln was also an inveterate racist who wanted to free slaves and send them back to Africa. He also didn't believe in racial equality.

These men have the three most impressive monuments in Washington DC dedicated to their memory. However, all three were deeply flawed men. Men whose flaws argue against being worthy of a monument at all.


It's for this reason that I generally oppose the building of monuments to people. People are flawed and history will not always judge their thoughts and deeds as kindly as others of their day. The only way we can raise men to the level that they are worthy of monuments is to turn a blind eye to portions of their lives.

I find it's a far better idea to build monuments to the events that these men participated in. For example, instead of a monument to flawed man who was George Washington, wouldn't a Founding Monument be a better idea? Such a monument can would memorialize Washington's contributions to the founding of our country without deifying a flawed human.

The same could go to other monuments. Instead of a Jefferson Memorial, an Independence Monument makes far more sense. Instead of a Lincoln Memorial, an Abolition Monument would be far more appropriate.

I support an honest view of history with consideration of people's contributions and their flaws. I think such a view is incompatible with the view necessary to build monuments to individuals.

[sturg33]

The mob will not stop. Monuments are coming down. Books will be removed. Television will be removed. Anything that is not approved by the woke activists is a target.

We are watching it unfold before our eyes

[nsacpi]

I wouldn't tear down monuments, but I would build more of them. Robert E Lee described James Longstreet as his best general. Yet there are very few monuments to Longstreet. Why? After the war, Longstreet worked for reconciliation and for the rights of blacks. I think it is time to recognize his contributions.

There are also the southern unionists. Brave men who were often disowned by their families for staying loyal to the United States and for fighting against slavery. General George Henry Thomas of Virginia for example.

So I wouldn't tear down Lee's statue. But I would bracket it with equally large statues of Generals Longstreet and Thomas.

I also think Atlanta needs to honor William Tecumseh Sherman. He taught Atlantans and southerners in general some very valuable lessons about war. Surely they can show him some appreciation.

[57Brave]

In general
Deifying military heroes is silly.

celebrating people that fought a war to guarantee the legality of slavery is ignorant and cruel

[nsacpi]

In general
Deifying military heroes is silly.

celebrating people that fought a war to guarantee the legality of slavery is ignorant and cruel

Through a program of recognizing people like Longstreet, Thomas and some of the southern regiments who fought for the Union, I think the South can come to a better understanding of the legacy of the Civil War. In many cases, the version of Civil War history that remains prevalent is the myth of the "lost cause." This is a dangerous myth that impedes progress. So I'm in favor of an educational campaign to help southerners better understand their own history. And that could include monuments to some neglected heroes. There are many southerners who behaved nobly during and after the war. It is time to recognize them.

More museums are needed too such as the Civil Rights museums in Atlanta and Memphis, and Levine Museum of the New South in Charlotte. And I'm pleased to see so many other historic places give new emphasis to the work of the enslaved peoples in building and keeping running the grand homes and estates of their owners.

There is no need to tear anything down. Much better to build new monuments and museums to provide a full picture of our complex history.

[striker42]

I wouldn't tear down monuments, but I would build more of them. Robert E Lee described James Longstreet as his best general. Yet there are very few monuments to Longstreet. Why? After the war, Longstreet worked for reconciliation and for the rights of blacks. I think it is time to recognize his contributions.

There are also the southern unionists. Brave men who were often disowned by their families for staying loyal to the United States and for fighting against slavery. General George Henry Thomas of Virginia for example.

So I wouldn't tear down Lee's statue. But I would bracket it with equally large statues of Generals Longstreet and Thomas.

I also think Atlanta needs to honor William Tecumseh Sherman. He taught Atlantans and southerners in general some very valuable lessons about war. Surely they can show him some appreciation.

Sherman is another whose statue on the National Mall needs to go. Anyone who thinks well of him needs to read about the capture of the mills as Roswell and New Manchester, GA. The mill workers, mostly women, were relocated to a camp where many were likely raped, before being forcibly relocated to Indiana and left there. Most never returned to their homes and families.

Some of the destruction reportedly done by Sherman was exaggerated, some was done by disserters or other rogue troops. But what happened at Roswell and New Manchester was intentional and truly atrocious. I grew up near where New Manchester was and have hiked to the mill ruins many times.

It's another example of why we should memorialize events and not men.

[nsacpi]

Sherman is another whose statue on the National Mall needs to go. Anyone who thinks well of him needs to read about the capture of the mills as Roswell and New Manchester, GA. The mill workers, mostly women, were relocated to a camp where many were likely raped, before being forcibly relocated to Indiana and left there. Most never returned to their homes and families.

Some of the destruction reportedly done by Sherman was exaggerated, some was done by disserters or other rogue troops. But what happened at Roswell and New Manchester was intentional and truly atrocious. I grew up near where New Manchester was and have hiked to the mill ruins many times.

It's another example of why we should memorialize events and not men.

War is hard. Sherman broke the south. Definitely should be in the national pantheon.

[nsacpi]

Enough of this political correctness. There needs to be a Sherman Boulevard down the middle of every southern city.

[striker42]

War is hard. Sherman broke the south. Definitely should be in the national pantheon.

By that logic the next time the US is engaged in a war we should just carpet bomb civilian areas until our opponent loses their fighting spirit and then glorify the general calling in the air raids.

Intentional targeting of non-combatants is the line he crossed. It wasn't right then and it's not right now.

There shouldn't be a national pantheon. That's my point. Every person we could try to put in it would have a disqualifying flaw.

[nsacpi]

By that logic the next time the US is engaged in a war we should just carpet bomb civilian areas until our opponent loses their fighting spirit and then glorify the general calling in the air raids.

Intentional targeting of non-combatants is the line he crossed. It wasn't right then and it's not right now.

There shouldn't be a national pantheon. That's my point. Every person we could try to put in it would have a disqualifying flaw.

Arthur Harris says hello. As do the survivors of the concentration camps and their descendants. I don't think many of them begrudge Harris his statue. War is a hard business, especially when a population lines up enthusiastically behind a horrific cause.



I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier.---Arthur Harris

[striker42]

Arthur Harris says hello. As do the survivors of the concentration camps and their descendants. I don't think many of them begrudge Harris his statue. War is a hard business, especially when a population lines up enthusiastically behind a horrific cause.

The carpet bombing of Dresden is one of the low points for the Allied forces in the war. There were legitimate military targets there. Indiscriminate bombing killing 25,000 people crossed a line.

[nsacpi]

The carpet bombing of Dresden is one of the low points for the Allied forces in the war. There were legitimate military targets there. Indiscriminate bombing killing 25,000 people crossed a line.

If the overwhelming majority of the civilians line up behind a regime that is slaughtering people in concentration camps or are fighting to uphold slavery they forfeit the protections of conscience. Imho. In fact, conscience demands that all means available be brought to bear in those circumstances. And actions like Harris' and Sherman's that might not be right under normal circumstances must be evaluated differently under those circumstances. In those circumstances, the right thing to do is to break the will of the offending population.

[nsacpi]

Anyhow, I don't expect the South to honor Sherman because the easier path is to hide behind "lost cause" mythology. But they should if they want to be honorable.

[acesfull86]

There shouldn't be a national pantheon. That's my point. Every person we could try to put in it would have a disqualifying flaw.

Is that setting the bar too high, though? I guess everyone is different, but when I see a statue of someone, I don't take it to be a tacit endorsement of everything they said or did. I feel like this is a new phenomenon.

One thing's for sure, there won't be a heck of a lot of statues built for anyone active during the social media era.

[Carp]

I was thinking about this earlier as well with the news of Hopkins and Watson calling for John Calhoun to be removed from Clemson honor's college. What is the limit we are putting up for tearing down statues and ripping names off institutions? Jefferson and Washington owned slaves. Do we blow up Mount Rushmore? Ben Franklin was a well known womanizer who fathered many bastard children. Even MLK was a womanizer and supposedly watched a rape as it happened and didn't report it, both social injustices that would clearly ostracize him in today's society.

To go further, Gandhi and Nelson Mandela are two of the most iconic figures of the 20th century, both revered by millions in the US and across the globe. Gandhi was an overt racist for much of his life and some other reports about his sexual conduct are troubling to say the least. Mandela practiced some pretty gruesome and violent political practices to gain power.

I find it silly to retroactively judge past hero's based off of today's morals. Part of the reason our society is even as developed as it is today is, in part, thanks to these men, despite their faults.

Well except Andrew Jackson. We'd have been better off if Andrew Jackson never became Prez.

[The Chosen One]

I think the Confederate Monuments should be in a museum and proceeds go to a worthy charitable cause.

We should never forget or erase history obviously. But if people want to admire a museum of monuments of traitors, make a buck off of it.

[nsacpi]

Is that setting the bar too high, though? I guess everyone is different, but when I see a statue of someone, I don't take it to be a tacit endorsement of everything they said or did. I feel like this is a new phenomenon.

One thing's for sure, there won't be a heck of a lot of statues built for anyone active during the social media era.

Churchill was a racist and imperialist. But he was also the greatest Briton.

Mandela endorsed an attack that targeted civilians. But he was also a great man.

We should stop being squeamish about great men (and women) not being perfect. We can honor them while being honest about their imperfections.

[nsacpi]

I think the Confederate Monuments should be in a museum and proceeds go to a worthy charitable cause.

We should never forget or erase history obviously. But if people want to admire a museum of monuments of traitors, make a buck off of it.

We should surround those monuments with other monuments and forms of remembrance that provide context. Personally, I get a kick out of visiting southern cities and seeing all the civil war statues. Small town New England does it in a different way, with a memorial listing the names of all the town's men who have died in various wars. I like that better, but as I said I get a kick out of the over-the-top approaches seen in the South. That's part of what makes the South the South.

[sturg33]

The toothpaste is out of the tube. We have already surrendered to the woke mob and they ain't gonna stop.

[striker42]

If the overwhelming majority of the civilians line up behind a regime that is slaughtering people in concentration camps or are fighting to uphold slavery they forfeit the protections of conscience. Imho. In fact, conscience demands that all means available be brought to bear in those circumstances. And actions like Harris' and Sherman's that might not be right under normal circumstances must be evaluated differently under those circumstances. In those circumstances, the right thing to do is to break the will of the offending population.

Thousands of children were killed in the bombing of Dresden. This wasn't collateral damage. It was indiscriminate, wholesale destruction. At best there was no care given to the loss of civilian life. At worst the civilians were targeted.

I think we have to be better than that. We have to strive to target valid military targets. Collateral damage is often unavoidable but we should never get to the point we're not even trying to not kill non-combatants.

Why have we spent billions developing guided missiles and smart bombs that can take out a target and leave the building next to it untouched? It would be far cheaper to just level entire city blocks with dumb weapons to destroy a target than to develop, build, and use smart munitions. The reason we do this is we strive to be better than those we're fighting.